Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Ship Repairs (Foreign Yards)

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now take action to prevent British-registered ships from being sent abroad for refitting and repair while unemployment persists at its present level in British ship-repairing yards.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): No, Sir. It sometimes saves very valuable ship's time to repair in an overseas port. The policy proposed would hamper the ability of our ships in competition with the ships of other flags to make their full contribution to our national balance of payments.

Mr. Chamberlain: While undoubtedly there has to be some further deflation of this industry, is my hon. Friend aware that the position is being greatly aggravated by the despatch to north European ports and to American ports of British ships for repair and refitting, which is being done at cut prices compared with British prices, and will he use his powers to do something about it?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir; I do not think it is the case that the position is being seriously aggravated. My hon. Friend will remember that this is a two-way traffic, with foreign ships being repaired in this country as well as British ships being repaired abroad, and that sometimes the balance of advantage is on our side.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Will the Parliamentary Secretary take note that the most prudent action he can take is to persuade British shipyards to lower their

costs, so that they can compete with foreign shipyards whose prices are cheaper?

Mr. Callaghan: There is no evidence that British costs are substantially above world prices.

Mr. Chamberlain: While there are many things in America that we do not want to imitate, is my hon. Friend aware that America puts a tax on her ships that go abroad to be repaired?

Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend does not at the moment wish to put any obstacles in the way of this two-way traffic, where the advantage is on our side.

Mr. Collick: Will my hon. Friend consider refusing sanction for British ships to be repaired in foreign ports where the conditions of labour do not compare with those in this country?

Mr. Callaghan: That is an important situation that is kept in mind.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Will the Parliamentary Secretary look at the costs position in view of the answer he has just given, and will he make it perfectly plain that if British shipyards are to compete with foreign shipyards, their costs and services have to be competitive?

Mr. Callaghan: That is a statement of principle which is quite unexceptionable—they have to be competitive and they are, in fact, competitive.

Proposed New Road, Shap Fell

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Transport what is the total length and estimated cost of the proposed new road to A.6 across Shap Fell; and what is the cost of the extensive improvements to A.6 to be carried out in the period 1948–50 on A.6 between Kendal and Shap village.

Mr. Callaghan: The length of the proposed new road near Shap on A.6 is 34½ miles, and the estimated cost of construction is about £5½ million. Twelve corners and sharp bends are being improved on the existing road at a total estimated cost of £62,486. Eleven of them have been completed.

Mr. Vane: Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into this madcap matter again? Now that he is spending £62,000 on improving what is already a very good road, will he try to postpone this absurd project costing a very large sum of money, at a time when every economy is needed, and depriving 110 farms of good agricultural land?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not accept the hon. Member's adjectives. He will know that my right hon. Friend undertook last week to look into the matter again.

Motor Cars (Parking)

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport how far his regulations preclude the parking of motor cars in a street which is not designated a yellow band street, provided the parked motor vehicles cause no obstruction.

Mr. Callaghan: There are no regulations which make it automatically an offence to park a vehicle in a street not specifically subject to an order restricting waiting.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that a large number of police are employed in taking particulars of cars parked in streets that are not yellow banded? What is the point of having yellow painted lamp-posts and arrows if parking is not permitted in streets which have no yellow bands and arrows?

Mr. Callaghan: There are regulations which make it an offence to park a vehicle in other streets if it causes unnecessary obstruction.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, Sir, but if the hon. Member reads the Question he will see that it refers to motor vehicles which do not cause any obstruction.

Dr. Segal: Is this a proper function for which lamp-posts ought to be used?

Left-hand Drive Vehicles

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce regulations to make the fitting of traffic indicators compulsory on left-hand drive motor vehicles.

Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend has this matter under consideration in connection with a recommendation made by the Road Safety Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Research Station, North Bedfordshire

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Supply (1) whether, in the interests of those farmers who may be affected, he will make a statement as to the effect of developments in connection with the Aeronautical Research Station in North Bedfordshire;
(2) whether he will issue a progress report regarding the Aeronautical Research Station being established in North Bedfordshire.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): All the farmers concerned have been informed of the effect of current developments and those planned for the near future. If future developments are likely to affect other farming interests ample warning will be given. Satisfactory progress is being made with the construction work, but it would not be in the public interest to give details.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: While I know that my right hon. Friend is being as helpful as possible in this matter, may I ask him whether he is aware that locally there is a feeling that there has not been in every case due notice of the developments? Will he watch that point in future rather more carefully?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir.

Steel (Export and Import)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Supply what is the balance of advantage to the British motor industry in the export of steel to France and the import of steel from France carried out under the authority of his Department.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Under agreements with the French steel industry, we have, during the past year, received substantial quantities of pig iron and steel which have enabled larger allocations of steel to be made to the steel using industries, including the motor industry, than would otherwise have been possible. In exchange, we have exported to France certain limited and much smaller quantities of semi-manufactured steel, including black sheet and blackplate. At the request of the French, 3,000 tons of finished automobile sheet, representing less than I per cent. of the total quantity


of high quality sheet steel allocated to British users this year, was later substituted for a larger amount of black sheet and blackplate covered by the original agreement.
I regret that in my reply to the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) on 21st November, I misinformed the House when I said that no finished automobile sheet steel had been exported to France.

Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that these transactions have, on balance, served to maintain full employment in the motor industry, and will he rebut the suggestion of Mr. Lord, of Austin's, that even one hour of production has been lost through this arrangement?

Mr. Strauss: There is no doubt at all that this arrangement, on the whole, has been beneficial to British industry. I cannot understand how it can be alleged that the shipping of some steel to France has retarded the British motor industry.

Mr. Blackburn: With all respect to my right hon. Friend, is it not a fact, as Mr. Lord told me on two occasions, that automobile body sheet steel was being exported and that the Minister has now generously admitted that Mr. Lord was right and he himself was wrong? Will he make a clear statement to the trade in order to satisfy them that this arrangement is, on the whole, in favour of this country?

Mr. Strauss: That is what I have just said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman).

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the export of sheet steel still continuing?

Mr. Strauss: No, Sir; it was a specific quantity of 3,000 tons, the order for which has now been completed.

Mr. Erroll: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, doubtless inadvertently, he misinformed the House last Monday week?

Mr. Strauss: This is a complicated business. There have been two agreements with the French industry, and I regret that owing to an oversight in my Department I did not give the correct figures. I cannot say more.

Royal Ordnance Factories

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Minister of Supply how many Royal Ordnance Factories are now making goods for civilian consumption on a competitive commercial basis; and if it is proposed to close down any of these.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Twelve of the 21 Royal Ordnance Factories are at present employing some part of their capacity on orders obtained by competitive tender for goods for civilian use. Partly because these orders are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain the general question of the number of Royal Ordnance Factories to be retained is under review, but no decision has been taken to close any one of them.

Mr. Skinnard: Does my right hon. Friend's answer mean that the policy announced earlier in this Parliament, of using certain Royal Ordnance Factories as standards for various types of civilian production, is now being abandoned?

Mr. Strauss: I do not think that any announcement was made in the terms just stated by my hon. Friend. The policy is that where we can obtain civilian orders which pay, or where they are helpful in maintaining war potential, we shall continue to obtain those orders.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult those Members of the House in whose constituencies Royal Ordnance Factories are before a decision is taken to close any of them?

Mr. Strauss: As I have said, no decision has yet been made to close any, but we will certainly communicate with such hon. Members if and when such a decision is taken.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is it not encouraging to find a member of the Socialist Party putting down a Question which talks about
making goods for civilian consumption on a competitive commercial basis"?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question.

Uranium Production, South Africa

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Minister of Supply by whom was Great Britain represented at the recent tripartite conference in Pretoria where the production


of uranium in South Africa was discussed; and if he is satisfied that Britain will receive a fair share of any such uranium.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Our representatives were the United Kingdom High Commissioner, Sir Evelyn Baring, and representatives of the Treasury and Ministry of Supply. As announced in South Africa on 30th November, considerable progress has been made in the talks and it is expected that further discussions will be held in a few months' time. There is nothing I can usefully add at present.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a real effort to see that our experience in relation to uranium from South Africa does not follow that of the Belgians in the Congo, where the Americans have taken the lot?

Mr. Strauss: I cannot agree with the implication of that supplementary question at all.

Atomic Piles

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Supply how many atomic piles are now operating in this country.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Two, Sir.

Commander Noble: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on this subject, so that we can have a little more information as to the direction in which our research is moving?

Mr. Strauss: I do not think it would be wise to give much information.

Mr. Blackburn: In view of the promise made by the Minister's predecessor, two years ago, that periodical reports would be given to the House on this matter, and the fact that it has been stated in the newspapers that work on the third atomic pile has been stopped, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the project is proceeding with as much expedition as possible?

Mr. Strauss: I can give that assurance.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the colossal amount of money already spent on atomic energy in this country, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public want to know whether we have the atom bomb or not?

Sir W. Smithers: So does Russia.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister tell us whether there is any security reason which prevents the people of this country from knowing as much about the atom bomb as people in the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A.?

Mr. Strauss: That question is very wide of the one which is on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

St. Stephen's Hall (Lighting)

Dr. Segal: asked the Minister of Works whether he will improve the lighting in St. Stephen's Hall to enable members of the waiting public to read their newspapers in comfort.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): The existing electric mains cannot take any increased load with safety. I hope a new A.C. supply will be available in about six months' time, and this should make some improvements possible.

Dr. Segal: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds of pairs of spectacles will have to be provided by his colleague the Minister of Health, at the taxpayers' expense, if this false economy is allowed to continue?

Mr. Key: I was not aware of that, but that is a reason, among others, for trying to expedite this work.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is it not thoroughly undesirable to provide any facilities for the study of the most prostituted Press in the world?

Westminster Hall (Repairs)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Works if it is proposed to hold any formal re-opening ceremony to mark the completion of the repair and restoration work in Westminster Hall and the restoration of the Hall to its normal appearance.

Mr. Key: I do not consider that a re-opening ceremony is called for. Although the roof scaffolding will shortly be removed, other repairs and the removal of obstructions cannot be completed for some time yet. No doubt a ceremony will take place when the joint Parliamentary War Memorial is completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Site Assistance Scheme

Mr. Marples: asked the Minister of Works what reduction in staff he has made consequent upon the discontinuation of the Ministry of Works Site Assistance Scheme; and what is the estimated annual saving of salaries.

Mr. Key: The savings in staff are estimated at 43, and in annual salaries at £23,000.

Mr. Marples: Does that represent the total number employed on this scheme?

Mr. Key: It represents the total number, but the reorganisation is not yet complete. There may be others to follow.

Offices (Building Licences)

Mr. Marples: asked the Minister of Works how many persons have made inquiries for licences for building offices and have been told that a licence would only be granted if all the accommodation was let on lease to his Department.

Mr. Key: None, so far as I am aware.

Mr. Marples: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if building licences are used as a weapon to ensure that the Government get all the accommodation at the expense of the rest of the community, it is a gross breach of the Executive's power.

Mr. Key: If they were so used, it would be, but they are not so used.

Mr. Marples: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that three gentlemen, of whom I was one, visited the Ministry of Works, where we were informed by one of his officials that under no circumstances would we be granted licences unless the total office accommodation was allotted to the Ministry of Works?

Mr. Key: I am not aware of that, and if it was said the person concerned had no authority to say it. He had nothing whatever to do with the licensing section of the Department. He was in the lands and accommodation section of the Department.

Mr. Spearman: asked the Minister of Works the total value of licences granted to private contractors for the purpose of building Government offices.

Mr. Key: The value of the licences granted was £7,576,000. This was for 30 lessor building schemes.

Mr. Marples: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the total value of the licences granted to private contractors for the building of offices other than for Government purposes?

Mr. Key: No, Sir, not without notice.

Colonel Dower: In the licences granted for Government work, were the same stringent restrictions in operation about the securing, use and control of materials as have always been insisted on in other licences?

Mr. Key: Certainly, and before the licences were granted inquiries were made as to the availability of the materials necessary.

Parliament Square (Layout)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Works if he will put in the Library a plan of the revised layout of Parliament Square agreed with the Westminster City Council.

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. A plan of the revised layout of Parliament Square will be placed in the Library tomorrow. This has been agreed with the Westminster City Council, the London County Council, the Ministry of Transport and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Bankside Power Station

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the boiler-house equipment at Bankside was designed for oil-fuel burning and not for burning coal, or for both methods.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): Coal firing, by itself or as an alternative to oil, would require installations for unloading, handling and stacking coal and the disposal of ash, and also a higher boiler-house than in the case of oil firing. It was felt accordingly that coal firing would conflict with the general desire that the design of the station should be in keeping with other plans for improving this section of the river bank.

Sir A. Gridley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what number of units generated per annum is estimated at Bankside power station, assuming a 40 per cent. load factor.

Mr. Gaitskell: Eight hundred and forty million units when the station is completed.

Sir A. Gridley: Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the decision to burn oil fuel, there will be an increased cost of production of approximately one-tenth of a penny per unit on these 840 million units, and does that mean that a very great cost will have to be borne by the consumers?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, the hon. Member's figures are approximately correct. That was taken into account at the time when the decision was made, but it was felt that the amenity grounds were sufficiently strong to justify this increased cost.

Sir A. Gridley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has yet received the final results of the experiments undertaken with regard to the elimination of deleterious effects from the burning of oil fuel at the Bankside power station; and how far they are conclusive that no deleterious effects need be feared.

Mr. Gaitskell: The report on the experiments made has been received and is at present under consideration. As I have explained in previous answers, the experiments were not for the purpose of finding out whether sulphur fumes could be effectively eliminated, about which there was no doubt, but to discover which method was most suitable.

Sir A. Gridley: Have they yet been successful?

Mr. Gaitskell: Oh yes, there are two methods and the purpose of the experiments was to see which was the more appropriate and cheaper.

Oil Production, Middle East

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what discussions have taken place with the United States Government regarding Middle East oil; and on what date His Majesty's Government agreed that it was in British interests to increase the possible outflow of crude oil on the Mediterranean coast

from four million tons in 1948 to at least 70 million tons by 1955 at the latest.

Mr. Gaitskell: Middle East oil has not, as such, been the subject of discussions with the United States Government, though matters of mutual interest to the two Governments regarding oil supplies are frequently under discussion.
As regards the second part of the Question, I assume the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the plans of various oil companies producing crude oil in Iraq, Persia, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for laying pipelines to the mediterranean coast. The decision to construct these pipelines rests with the commercial interests concerned; in one case the sponsoring companies are entirely American controlled and in the other cases foreign as well as British companies are involved. The question therefore of His Majesty's Government's agreement to the increase mentioned, in the Question has not arisen.

Major Beamish: Does the Minister agree that the whole European Recovery Programme is dependent on British and American oil policy in the Middle East, and how can he say that this is a matter which only concerns commercial interests? Surely it is a matter which concerns the Government?

Mr. Gaitskell: Obviously, the British Government have a great interest in the development of oil in the Middle East, but specific projects for laying pipelines are matters for the companies themselves.

Major Beamish: asked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for high policy decisions regarding the extraction, transport and refining of crude oil in the Middle East and for the co-ordination of this work with British strategic, economic and political interests at home and abroad.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It is not a function or responsibility of any of His Majesty's Ministers to reach decisions about the extraction, transport or refining of crude oil in foreign countries, any more than in the case of other commercial activities of British subjects in foreign countries. The strategic, economic and political interests of His Majesty's Government in the oil produced in Middle East countries is considered by the various Ministers concerned who consult together as necessary.

Major Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is hard to resist the impression that far too little attention is being paid to the question at Government levels, and furthermore, that there has been a serious lack of co-ordination between the Government Departments? Will he assure the House that he will look most carefully into this?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will try hard to resist these false impressions.

Mr. Mikardo: Would not the desire of the Treasury to save dollars and the Minister of Fuel and Power to get oil from the Mediterranean ports be furthered if the Foreign Secretary did not subsidise Arab Governments to prevent the flow of Arab oil to Mediterranean ports?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend does not do anything of the sort.

Gas Industry (Joint Consultation)

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has yet received from the Gas Council and the area boards copies of agreements on joint consultation, as laid down in Section 57 of the Gas Act, 1948.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir.

Mr. Albu: Can my right hon. Friend say when he expects to receive them?

Mr. Gaitskell: I understand that agreement between the manual workers and the Gas Council has been reached, and the new constitution which has been settled is being printed at the moment.

POLITICAL PROPAGANDA (EXPENDITURE)

Mr. Bing: asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the large expenditure being incurred now by political and commercial bodies, contrary to the provisions of Section 42 of the Representation of the People Act, 1948, with a view to supporting the candidature at the General Election of those opposed to Socialism and, in particular, to the nationalisation of certain industries; and whether he proposes to take any action.

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation dealing with Parliamentary election expenses.

Colonel Dower: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce legislation to ensure that if shareholders of industrial companies enter into expenditure in opposing nationalisation of industries, such expenditure is returnable in election expenses.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation in the present Parliament to provide that money spent on anti-nationalisation propaganda by industries threatened with nationalisation in the Government's election programme shall be included in the election expenses of candidates opposing the Government.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I have been asked to answer Question No. 40 to the Prime Minister and also Question No. 41 to the Lord President, and No. 63 to the Home Secretary. With permission, I will answer those three Questions together with this Question addressed to myself, and it will be convenient if I deal with the three latter Questions first.
Parliament has quite recently passed the Representation of the People Act, 1948, and the Consolidation Act, 1949. which contain provisions dealing, amongst other things, with the expenditure which is permitted in connection with propaganda calculated to promote one candidature at an election or to disparage another. As at present advised, His Majesty's Government do not propose to introduce further legislation but prefer to rely upon the operation of the existing law in relation to the matter.
I now come to the Question addressed to myself which I answer, not as a matter of Government policy, but in my position as Attorney-General. My attention has been called to certain expenditure on what may seem to be political propaganda, and I have given anxious consideration to the matter in consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Whilst the whole matter is being carefully watched, I do not propose to direct any proceedings at the present time, since the question of the legality of any expenditure


incurred now, would have to be considered in the light of the effect it is calculated to produce if and when an election occurs. I think it is right to add, however, that whilst I can lay down no binding rule in the matter, which is one to be considered on the facts of each particular case, it is my view that the prohibition of certain expenditure on propaganda calculated to influence an election is not necessarily restricted to propaganda in which any particular candidate is expressly referred to, nor is it necessarily confined to expenditure incurred only after the dissolution of Parliament or the issue of a writ for an election or the nomination of a candidate.

Colonel Dower: When considering this matter, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take into account the gift by the Co-operative Society of £30,000 for party political propaganda and also such gifts as those given by the trade unions, and, indeed, the money spent by the Central Office of Information on controversial problems.

Mr. John Hynd: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also consider similar undisclosed sums contributed to other political parties?

The Attorney-General: So far as the first two cases are concerned, I have not any particular information but, as my hon. Friend has just said, I see no reason to distinguish those payments from other payments, whether public or secret, to the political funds of any particular political party.

Sir I. Fraser: If before an election there were a birthday party at which the candidates gathered together to celebrate that birthday, to rejoice over past activities, and to wish themselves a happy return, would such an activity fall within the limits of which the Attorney-General has just warned us?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member ought not to ask me, as Attorney-General, about a hypothetical case, and whether he asks it or not he will not get an answer from me.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider legislation making it necessary for all political parties, to disclose the source of their financial income?

Mr. Keeling: If propaganda in favour of nationalisation were included in election expenses on the same bases as propaganda against nationalisation, might it not be that the total expenditure on propaganda in favour of nationalisation would absorb the whole of the maximum expenses allowed for all Labour candidates?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid my answer has no reference to the amount of money which may be involved. I simply sought to state what is my view of the law.

Mr. Bing: Is the Attorney-General aware that at the present moment certain insurance companies are employing paid canvassers who, as well as seeking for business, are attempting to influence the political views of the people on whom they call? Will he point out to them the desirability of an appropriate sum being included in the election expenses of the candidates whom they support?

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Did the Lord President of the Council consult the Attorney-General before he made his recent speech?

The Attorney-General: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not usual to state what communication passes between one Minister and another, but in case it should be thought that I am not prepared to associate myself with what the Lord President said, I must say that when I read his speech in the newspaper it did not appear to me to contain any proposition of law which either shocked or startled me.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Attorney-General aware that many of us did not quite catch the answer which he gave to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes), and will he consider the advisability of making it obligatory upon all political parties to publish annually audited accounts in the same way as the Labour Party has always done?

Mr. Henry Strauss: Has the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman been drawn to the speech made by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) to the effect that the Communists will support Socialist candidates in most constituencies? Does he think that the


present law is strong enough to ensure that the Communist expenditure is included in that of the Socialist candidates they support?

The Attorney-General: The Hon. and learned Gentleman may recall that that was a matter which we discussed in the course of the Debate on the Representation of the People Bill. I said then, and I now repeat, that intervention by third parties, whether of the Communist Party or of a commercial or industrial concern, in an election, and intervention by the expenditure of money, would be within the Statute.

Mr. Speaker: There are other Questions on the Order Paper.

POLICE (PRESS STATEMENTS)

Mr. Harry Wallace: asked the Attorney-General if he has yet decided to instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to start a prosecution for criminal libel against the editor of the "New Statesman" in respect of the accusations against the Metropolitan Police which appeared in that paper on 24th September and 1st October.

The Attorney-General: I have considered the publications in question. I do not propose to initiate any proceedings, as I do not consider that the facts disclose a criminal offence.

Mr. Crossman: Does the Attorney-General appreciate that the rejection of this proposal will be welcomed by all those who repudiate the abuse of the law in order to curtail the freedom of the Press?

The Attorney-General: Whatever the political complexion of the newspaper concerned, I certainly do not intend to attempt to stretch the law either of criminal libel or of public mischief in order to restrict the freedom of the Press.

Mr. Wyatt: Would the Attorney-General consider instituting proceedings for criminal libel against the editor of the "Spectator" for publishing on 4th November an article—

Mr. Speaker: The Question concerns the "New Statesman" and not the "Spectator."

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Will not the Attorney-General's answer be specially welcomed by the editorial staff of the "New Statesman"?

FOOD SUPPLIES

Carrots

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food what quantities of foreign carrots he has imported this autumn and how much does he propose to import; and if the same price restrictions will be imposed on foreign as on home-grown carrots.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): My right hon. Friend has not imported any carrots and does not propose to do so. Private traders, however, may import new crop carrots when these are available. Main crop carrots of the 1949 crop are price-controlled, but there will be no control of the new crop, whether home-grown or imported.

Sir W. Smithers: Can the right hon. Lady assure us that no priority in any way at all will be given to the foreign grower at the expense of the British grower?

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer I have given, he will see what I have told him.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will carrots figure in the election expenses of the Labour Party?

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if he will give the names of organisations and persons with whom he has consultations before fixing the carrot prices.

Dr. Summerskill: The National Farmers' Unions; the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades, Ltd., and the Joint Council of British Potato and Vegetable Merchants' Associations, representing wholesalers; the Retail Fruit Trade Federation and the Scottish Federation of Grocers, representing retailers; and with trade union representatives.

Sir W. Smithers: Would the right hon. Lady say whether the advice of the organisations she has mentioned was acted upon, and whether she is aware


that, because of Government control, the vegetable and fruit industry is in chaos, large amounts of produce are being wasted and there is a great loss of fruit which is now rotting on the ground?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

Cheese Ration

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Food if he will give an estimate of how much extra cheese would be required to raise the general cheese ration up to that given to workers employed in heavy industry; and whether he will now grant this increase.

Dr. Summerskill: If we gave everyone the ration allowed to classes of workers who cannot use canteens, the extra quantity required would be about 800,000 tons a year. Any substantial increase in supplies could only come from North America and even if we could afford the dollars we could not obtain enough to carry out this proposal.

Pepper (Price)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the shortage and big rise in the price of pepper during recent months; and if he will take steps to fix a maximum price for this commodity.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the increase in the present price of pepper over the price one year ago and in 1938; and if he will now enforce a reasonable maximum price.

Dr. Summerskill: The high prices for pepper arise from a world shortage due primarily to the delay in restoring production in the Far East. It would be almost impossible to establish a maximum price while the imported cost fluctuates so widely, and while there would be the risk that if the maximum price were below world market levels we should lose such supplies as we can buy at present.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is quite impossible in many shops to buy any pepper at all, and that where one can get it the price is sometimes two or three times what it was a few months ago? Does

she not think that this position is extremely unsatisfactory and will she not consider imposing some control whereby there will be a fairer distribution at a fairer price?

Dr. Summerskill: I must remind my hon. Friend of what I have stated, which is that the demand is greater than the supply and that there is no evidence of any speculation or cornering of the market.

Wholesale Meat Supply Associations

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Food if he will give the names of the importing meat firms who are in the wholesale meat supply associations; what were the amounts of commission paid to them from the total commission of £3,708,711 in 1948–49; and what service was given by them.

Dr. Summerskill: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of 22 members of wholesale meat supply associations. The share of these firms in the amount available for distribution was £844,460. These firms have made available managerial, technical and clerical staff, and premises and equipment for the wholesale distribution of meat.

Mr. Keenan: Will the list contain the names of all the former importing firms, and are any of the names missing from the list of the associations; and are any of the firms now receiving compensation because they are not in business as they were pre-war?

Dr. Summerskill: This list will contain all the importers who were wholesalers. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are men who are not working now as they were working pre-war, but we have agreed to this scheme with the importers who are serving us as our agents. I am afraid we shall have to let this scheme operate pending a decision as to the distribution of meat.

Mr. Paget: Will my right hon. Friend consider putting a star against the names of the firms who are doing absolutely nothing for their money and have not been for years?

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the questions repeatedly asked with regard to this matter, does not the right hon. Lady


think that the time is now ripe to hand over the business of the distribution of meat to these firms, who do not want something for nothing? If the Ministry would do that, is it not the case that they would not want to occupy eight refrigerating ships for storage?

Mr. Mitchison: Is it not true that the wholesale distribution of meat by these arrangements is considerably cheaper than it ever was under private enterprise?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.

Following is the list:

Member's of Wholesale Meat Supply Associations who imported meat before the war.

Armour &amp; Co., Ltd.
T. Borthwick &amp; Sons, Ltd.
Co-operative Wholesale Society, Ltd.
Elliott &amp; Hetherington, Ltd.
Henry S. Fitter &amp; Sons, Ltd.
Michie &amp; White, Ltd.
A. J. Mills &amp; Co., Ltd.
Morris &amp; Co. (M.I.), Ltd.
L. A. Nicholl, Ltd.
Packing House Products, Ltd.
Product Distributors, Ltd.
Ridpath Bros., Ltd.
A. Robinson &amp; Co.
Sansinena Co., Ltd.
Sheed, Thomson &amp; Co., Ltd.
Smithfield &amp; Argentine Meat Co., Ltd.
Stock Breeders Meat Co., Ltd.
Swift &amp; Co., Ltd.
Towers &amp; Co., Ltd.
W. Weddel &amp; Co., Ltd.
Wilson Meats, Ltd.
Whiteley, Muir &amp; Zwanenburg, Ltd.

Cows (Transport and Slaughter)

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that a number of reject cows were sent by his Department on 18th October by rail from Gowerton, Glamorganshire, to Nottingham for slaughter; and if he will arrange in future for such aged animals to be slaughtered at the nearest slaughterhouse and the carcases despatched to the desired destination.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir; the movement took place at a time when more cows were being sent to markets in the south-western area than could be killed there. Nottingham was the nearest place where they could be dealt with; they arrived in good order and were killed on the same day. Normally we kill such animals at the nearest slaughterhouse that can deal with them quickly.

Mr. Symonds: Would my right hon. Friend agree with the general principle

that long journeys for aged animals are quite unnecessary?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.

Retail Butchers' Profits

Commander Galbraith: asked the Minister of Food to state, in relation to retail butchers, what figures he allowed on the estimated annual turnover of £243 million, in respect of adjustment of stocks, purchases and expenses, to arrive at a net profit figure of £16,250,000.

Dr. Summerskill: The amount allowed for purchases, including the surcharge, is £190,750,000 per annum, and for expenses is £36 million per annum. No adjustments are made in respect of stocks.

Canned Tunney (Imports)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of canned tunny fish has so far been imported from Japan; and what is the estimated quantity he proposes to import in the forthcoming year.

Dr. Summerskill: Six hundred and sixty-one tons so far. It has not yet been decided whether any will be imported from Japan next year.

Mr. Marshall: May I ask the Minister two questions? First, has she found this brand popular with the public, and second, will she see that the imports next year in no circumstances conflict with or injure the Cornish pilchard industry?

Dr. Summerskill: As to the first part of the supplementary question, it is too soon to gauge the public's acceptance of this fish. The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is: Yes, Sir.

Meat Offal

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food whether more offal will be available to the housewife during the period when the meat ration is increased from; 1s. 4d. to 1s. 6d.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. Increased imports of carcase meat do not mean that we shall have available correspondingly increased supplies of offals. We cannot therefore increase distribution but in the December allocation we shall be putting out the usual supplies of offal from home-killed animals and also imported tongues, which I think housewives will welcome.

Sir T. Moore: Is it really true, can the Minister say, that cows have no innards nowadays; and if so, where do they go? They certainly do not go to the housewife.

CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES CONFERENCE

Mr. Erroll: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will arrange to issue in the near future a short summary of the principal points raised at the recent World Resources Conference at Lake Success, together, if possible, with some indication of what action is being taken or is to be taken by His Majesty's Government in connection therewith.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The United Nations Scientific Conference on the Conservation and Utilisation of Resources was essentially for the exchange of current technical experience over a wide field of natural resources. The Conference intentionally passed no resolutions, nor made any recommendations, and its proceedings do not lend themselves to a short summary which would be of any value. No action is called for by His Majesty's Government.
I understand that the Conference was successful in achieving its limited objectives and that the United Kingdom made a substantial and valuable contribution to its work, both in the attendance of an eminent delegation and by the numerous written papers from various other specialists.
A full report of the proceedings, with the papers contributed, will be produced by the United Nations Secretariat in due course, and will be available in the Library.

RESEARCH (EXPENDITURE)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will give an assurance that in connection with the programme of expenditure cuts now under consideration, no steps will be taken to reduce the valuable work at present being undertaken by the Agricultural and Medical Research Councils, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the industrial research associations associated therewith.

Mr. H. Morrison: I could not agree that these services should be immune from the cuts which have to be made in Government expenditure in general, but I share the hon. Member's desire that they should be spared as much as possible from reductions in their current activities. We shall seek to effect such savings as may be required mainly by slowing down the rate of future capital expenditure.

GERMANY

Death Sentences (Guillotine)

Mr. Elwyn Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in how many cases since the end of hostilities death sentences imposed by British Control Commission courts in Germany have been carried out by the use of the guillotine; how many of such beheadings have taken place since the German authorities abolished the death penalty, what protests he has received from the German authorities against the revival of the use of the guillotine; and what steps are proposed to abolish its use.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): Eighty-seven death sentences imposed by Control Commission courts were carried out by guillotining in the period before the German authorities abolished the death penalty. No guillotinings have taken place since them. No protests against the use of the guillotine have been received. Its use has now been discontinued.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will my hon. Friend see that the widest publicity is given to his announcement in Germany because, certainly up to a fortnight ago, the legal authorities of Hamburg were not aware of this decision to abolish the use of the guillotine and were, indeed, somewhat perturbed at the prospect of once more having to haul it out of the local museum to carry out a pending execution?

Mr. Mayhew: I am not aware of that, but I hope my answer will make it clear.

Mails, Berlin (Russian Seizure)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken with regard to the seizure by the Russian authorities of mails entering the British sector of Berlin.

Mr. Mayhew: On the night of 16th-17th November, Soviet officers on the interzonal border impounded and removed a wagon containing parcels on the regular German post train from the British zone to Berlin. The British Commandant in Berlin addressed a letter of protest to the Soviet authorities and demanded the immediate release of the mail wagon. The wagon was returned on 23rd November.

Mr. Reid: Were the mails returned?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, the mails were returned.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Had the mails been opened or examined at all?

Mr. Mayhew: Certain of them had been examined.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Was any apology made by the Russian authorities to the British authorities in Berlin? If not, what is the hon. Gentleman going to do about it?

Dismantling

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German plants now exempted from dismantling include those workshops Nos. 2, 10/11 and 19 as well as the 402 items of machinery of the Stahlwerke Braunschweig, in Niedersachsen, which were exempted in February, 1946, until further notice, for conversion to wagon and engine repair shops.

Mr. Mayhew: I am having inquiries made and will inform my hon. Friend as soon as I receive a reply.

Game Shooting (Restrictions)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the restrictions on the shooting of game recently imposed upon German nationals by the British Element of the Allied Control Commission in Germany; and whether he will cause these restrictions to be abolished.

Mr. Mayhew: No new restrictions have recently been imposed in the British zone. On the contrary, an Ordinance was published on 1st July, 1949, permitting German nationals to possess sporting weapons and ammunition and to use them to shoot game, provided that they have a

British zone game licence and firearms certificate and a German hunting licence. Licences are now being issued to Germans more liberally than in the past.

Mr. Bartlett: Even so, is the hon. Gentleman aware that such conditions have been abolished in the French zone and does he not agree that it seems rather absurd that at the time when we are establishing a Government for Germany we also issue an edict which prevents any German from going out to pot a rabbit unless he goes through the complicated business of getting a British permit?

Mr. Mayhew: I understand that the manufacture and sale of sporting firearms is being considered now by the Military Security Board. It is possible that after that a change of policy may arise.

Mr. J. Hynd: Does not my hon. Friend consider that the Germans ought to be instructed to deal with these rabbits and other game by the safer method of bursting balloons, which it is reported was used for starting sporting events in Berlin recently?

Floating Dock, Kiel

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to issue disposal instructions for floating dock, No. TNC 70, at present lying in Kiel Harbour.

Mr. Mayhew: Tripartite agreement has now been reached to offer this dock to the German Federal Government on charter.

Mr. Erroll: At what rates?

Mr. Mayhew: The conditions of the charter are still under negotiation.

BROADCASTS TO EUROPE

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much time is devoted by the British Broadcasting Corporation in their Overseas Service broadcasts to France and Germany; and whether he will now advise the British Broadcasting Corporation to use some of this time for broadcasts to countries in Eastern Europe.

Mr. Mayhew: The B.B.C. broadcasts to France and Germany respectively for


4½ and 4¾ hours daily. Because of the system of networks corresponding roughly to geographical areas on which the B.B.C. European Services operate, adjustments in the duration of broadcasts are possible only as between reception areas on the same network. France is not on the same network as the Eastern European countries and therefore any time saved on the French transmissions could not be used for Eastern Europe. Germany is on the Eastern European network but my right hon. Friend would be reluctant to advise any reduction of German transmissions.

Mr. Haire: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the need for broadcasting to France is much less than it was a year ago and that listener research now indicates a very reduced B.B.C. audience in France? Can he say whether the technical difficulties in that respect are insuperable?

Mr. Mayhew: I am not sure about the facts which my hon. Friend has put forward, but I have explained the very serious difficulties in the way of this change.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to use all the influence he can to stop the B.B.C. broadcasting pro-Communist propaganda such as "The Soviet View"?

CHINA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement on the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to diplomatic relations and trading arrangements with the Communist and Nationalist Governments in China, respectively.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. There is nothing which I can usefully add to previous statements on these subjects. I would refer the hon. Member particularly to the statement of my right hon. Friend to the House on 16th November.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government, if the Communist ré gime in China is recognised, to recognise it de jure or de facto?

Mr. Mayhew: The whole question of recognition is being considered. I have nothing to add to previous replies.

SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (TRUSTEESHIP)

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, following the speech by the Rev. Michael Scott, before the Trusteeship Committee of the United Nations, on 28th November, the British delegation voted against the motion, carried by 33 votes to 11, that South-West Africa be placed under the Trusteeship system; and what instructions were given them on this matter.

Mr. Mayhew: The resolution to which my hon. Friend no doubt refers dealt mainly with the submission of reports on South-West Africa. His Majesty's Government have supported reference of the question of the Union Government's obligations in regard to South-West Africa to the International Court of Justice, and have therefore abstained on assembly resolutions which prejudged the issue. In this case, moreover, the resolution was offensively worded and contained an allegation that the Union Government had repudiated an assurance which they had previously given. As His Majesty's Government considered that no such assurance was given, it was decided to vote against the resolution.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is it not clearly laid down in the Charter of the United Nations that the placing of a territory under Trusteeship is a voluntary Act by the administering Power, and is it not therefore putting discredit on the United Nations to pass resolutions contrary to the Charter?

Mr. Mayhew: All this is going to the International Court.

OIL EXPLORATION, ARABIAN COAST

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps His Majesty's Government have taken and will take to assist Petroleum Concessions Ltd., Petroleum Development Ltd. (Oman and Dhofar) and Petroleum Development Ltd,


(Trucial Coast) at present exploring for oil round the Arabian coast between Qatar and Aden.

Mr. Mayhew: The companies have been afforded all proper assistance by the local representatives of His Majesty's Government. The latter have placed their knowledge of the conditions in the area at the companies' disposal and have, where necessary, used their good offices with local authorities. This assistance will continue to be afforded in the future.

Major Beamish: Is the Under-Secretary aware of the strategic importance that oil can have if found in these areas in substantial quantities? Is he further aware that I am not asking in any way for Government interference, but for closer liaison with these companies?

Mr. Mayhew: We have received no complaints from the companies.

SHIPBUILDING (REFRIGERATED VESSELS)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many new refrigerated vessels have been completed in British shipyards since 1945; and how many of these were sold to foreign countries.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The number of merchant ships with not less than 80,000 cubic feet of refrigerated space completed in British yards since the end of 1945 is 59. Of these, five were built for foreign owners and one for Canada.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Christmas Leave

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the high proportion of young National Service men in the Army, he is satisfied that everything possible has been done to ensure that the maximum number of them will be able to spend Christmas on leave with their families.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): Yes. It is provided that four days' leave at Christmas may be granted to all soldiers in the United Kingdom who can be spared from duty, and it is customary for units to

arrange their work so that only essential duties have to be carried out during this period. Soldiers who cannot be granted leave at Christmas may receive a similar period of leave over the New Year. These regulations apply to Regular soldiers and National Service men alike.

Sir I. Fraser: Can the Under-Secretary of State estimate what proportion of Regulars and National Service men will get leave?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot give an exact estimate, but it will be a considerable number.

Mr. D. Marshall: May I ask the Minister, in view of his answer, whether any extra warrant will be granted to men having to travel long distances?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the Minister assure the House that for Scots regiments leave will be granted at the New Year instead of at Christmas?

Mr. Stewart: In Scotland the position will be the reverse of what I have described for the rest of the Kingdom.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Not only in Scotland but for units outwith Scotland?

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the hon. Gentleman enlarge on that statement and say what is happening to troops stationed in Europe and Tripolitania?

Mr. Stewart: That is another question.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Scots in Hong Kong get an extra ration of Christmas pudding because they cannot go home?

Rations and Entertainments, Christmas

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for War what special arrangements are being made for extra Christmas rations and entertainments for the troops at home and abroad.

Mr. M. Stewart: Arrangements for Christmas fare this year are similar to those in previous years. At home units will be able to purchase poultry, eggs and Christmas puddings through the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, with their ration cash allowance or regimental funds. At overseas stations a


cash grant of ninepence a head for British troops and sixpence a head for local troops is being made in aid of seasonable fare.
Entertainment is primarily the concern of the unit commanders. At home a number of unit amateur theatrical shows will be performed, particularly in hospitals, and on 27th December there will be cinema shows in most of the theatres of the Army Kinema Corporation. In overseas stations a special Christmas broadcast, for which 13 well-known artists have given their services free, will be given and there will be various professional and amateur shows, cabarets and cinema performances.

Sir I. Fraser: Does the first part of the answer mean that no extra rations are given to them' and that they can only buy out of their existing cash?

Mr. Stewart: That is so at home, and the arrangements overseas are as I have described.

SARAWAK (ATTACK ON GOVERNOR)

Mr. Oliver Stanley: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make about the attack made on the Governor of Sarawak.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): Yes, Sir. The facts so far reported to me are as follow. While paying his first official visit to Sibu on Saturday, the Governor, Mr. Duncan Stewart, was suddenly attacked by two Malays as he walked from the wharf to the Government Offices. He received a stab wound in the abdomen. An operation was performed almost immediately and further surgical help was quickly sent by R.A.F. flying boat from Singapore. The Governor was taken by flying boat to Singapore yesterday and he endured the journey remarkably well. He has had several blood transfusions. The latest information this morning is that he spent a fair night and appears to have got over the immediate dangers of the initial stage. His condition nevertheless remains serious. Mrs. Stewart, who had not intended to join her husband until the New Year, left by air for Singapore this morning. The assailants, who have been

arrested, are understood to be members of a group which is opposed to the cession of Sarawak to the Crown. Investigations are proceeding.
I am sure that all hon. Members of the House will share the Government's horror and disgust at this incident and will join me in expressing to the Governor sincere wishes for a full and speedy recovery.

Mr. Stanley: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends both with the Colonial Secretary's expression of horror at the occurrence and also with his condolences to the family and his wish for the recovery of the Governor? Will the Secretary of State, as far as possible when a trial is pending, keep the House in touch with developments and, particularly, tell us whether this is an isolated action or whether it appears to have behind it the backing of some party?

Mr. Creech Jones: Certainly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will make an opportunity available to debate the action of the Minister of Civil Aviation with regard to the Report on the Civil Aircraft Accident at Prestwick?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir, the Government are prepared to afford an opportunity on Thursday of this week for a Debate on the action of the Minister of Civil Aviation with regard to the Report on the Civil Aircraft Accident at Prestwick This will involve an alteration in the Business and we shall not now take the Motion to approve the Draft Wool Textile Industry Development Council Order announced for Thursday.
I am informed that the Parliament Square (Improvements) Bill has been reported from the Select Committee. In view of the urgency of this Bill, I hope that it will be agreeable to the House to take the Committee and remaining stages as first order on Wednesday, so that the Bill may be sent to another place as early as possible
It may be convenient, therefore, if I re-state the order of Business for Wednesday and the rest of the week—
WEDNESDAY, 7TH DECEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the Parliament Square (Improvements) Bill and


of the India (Consequential Provision) Bill, and conclusion of the Committee stage of the Justices of the Peace Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY, 8TH DECEMBER.—Consideration of an Opposition Motion on the action of the Minister of Civil Aviation relating to the Report on the Civil Aircraft Accident at Prestwick until about 7 p.m. Afterwards, a Debate will take place on the Eleventh Report from the Estimates Committee on Agricultural Services; and consideration of Motion to approve the draft Calf Rearing Scheme (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY, 9TH DECEMBER.—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill and to the National Parks Bill; and Second Reading of the following Consolidation measures, which have come from another place: Patents Bill, Registered Designs Bill, Vehicles (Excise) Bill, Election Commissioners Bill, and Air Corporations Bill.

Mr. Frank Byers: Is it proposed to take the Development Council Order for the wool textile industry before Christmas or is it postponed indefinitely?

Mr. Morrison: I could not say about that. As a result of this readjustment of Business it was necessary to hold it over, but I could not say firmly what the future of that Order is. It must depend upon the course of Business.

Mr. Maclay: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has considered the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Tweedsmuir) in relation to the Debate on the Report of the Transport Commission?
[That in the opinion of this House there has not been enough time allowed by His Majesty's Government to debate the Transport Commissioners Accounts, covering the railways, road transport, docks, inland waterways and many of the hotels and urges that a further day be allotted.]
May I ask, too, whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that, owing to the short time available, there were many aspects of the work of the Transport Commission which were not discussed?
Will he consider at an early date giving us a further opportunity to debate that Report?

Mr. Morrison: I should not have thought it was likely. The whole British transport situation was under review last Thursday, and that included Scotland. I do not think I can find time for a particular part of Great Britain.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: On the Business for Thursday, will the first spokesman for the Government be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation or the Secretary of State for Air?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member, in his new position, must not expect to determine what Government speakers go in first. That is a matter for us, and not for the hon. Member, to decide.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman has read some implications into my remark which certainly were not there. It is a matter of interest to the House to know who is to speak in a Debate.

Mr. Morrison: I dare say it is. It is for the Opposition to choose their speakers and for the Government to choose theirs. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a matter for Mr. Speaker."] I quite agree. I beg your pardon, Sir. It is for you to call who catches your eye, but, subject to that, it is for each side to choose their own speakers. It is not for the hon. Member, who most definitely sits on the other side, to try to draw the Government's fire first.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Referring to the question and observation by my hon. Friend on the subject of the Motion on the Order Paper relating to Scottish affairs and transport, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this, in view of the fact that time was so short that not only did no Minister mention Scotland, but we were unable within the time to get enough speakers from Scotland called?

Mr. Morrison: On the last occasion I saw the hon. and gallant Gentleman on his feet, he was looking after England and Wales.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is the Lord President aware that during the transport Debate the opposite side were represented


by fewer than a dozen Members throughout the Debate, except during the opening and closing speeches, and how can my right hon. Friend explain this sudden interest on their part in transport?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is on a perfectly fair point, of which, no doubt, the Opposition will take notice.

STANDING COMMITTEE E (QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE)

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received a report from the Serjeant at Arms on the incident which was raised last Wednesday. After considering the report—this was the case of Mr. Christopher Powell, the House will remember—I have come to the conclusion that there is prima facie evidence that Mr. Powell did endeavour to persuade the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) not to enter Standing Committee Room E on the morning of Tuesday, 29th November.
Whether or not such interference constitutes a breach of Privilege is a matter for the House and not for me to decide. I must point out, however, that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) did not bring the matter to the notice of the House until 24 hours too late to be able to avail himself of the precedence given to matters of Privilege raised at the earliest possible moment. Under this important Rule I could not, therefore, allow the matter to be raised on Wednesday last before Public Business. But, of course, it is open to any hon. Member to put down a Motion and to ask for time for its discussion.
There is, however, another aspect of this case. Mr. Powell is employed as secretary of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and in that capacity is given accommodation in the Palace of Westminster and is allowed to contact Members and to entertain, at the direction of the Chairman of the Union, in the same way as the secretary of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is so permitted.
I do not consider that it is desirable or fair that these facilities should be given to a gentleman who is also engaged in approaching Members of Parliament on various aspects of Public Business, since

such facilities are not allowed to other gentlemen engaged in similar business in the Lobbies. To give them to Mr. Powell in these circumstances appears directly contrary to the steps taken by the Serjeant at Arms at my direction to prevent the continuance of undesirable practices in connection with this House such as were revealed in the Report of the Lynskey Tribunal.

Sir T. Moore: As I was in some way connected with the opposition to the Bill in question, I should like to put to you, Sir, two points for your consideration. Is it not within the tradition of Parliament that any member of the public can lobby any Member of Parliament in regard to the support of or opposition to any particular Bill? Secondly, is it not also within Parliamentary tradition or convention that any group of Members of Parliament who may be opposed to or in support of a Bill can engage or arrange with some convenient or suitable person to co-ordinate their efforts? I submit that, in this particular case, some of us who were opposed to the Bill and who could not be in our places to oppose it at that time thought it suitable, and possibly convenient to all concerned, that Mr. Powell should be entrusted to ensure that those others—[Interruption]—may I finish my sentence?—to ensure that those others of us who were equally opposed to the Bill might be in their places to see that the opposition was properly represented.

Mr. Skinnard: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Does the right of the ordinary public to lobby Members of Parliament extend to invading the Upper Corridor during the period when a Committee is sitting?

Mr. Speaker: Those are matters, I think, that come under the first half of my Ruling, and it is not for me to give a judgment on that. Those are matters for the House of Commons, which can regulate its own procedure.

Mr. Eden: Whilst thanking you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, for my part I should like to consider this matter a little further; maybe the Leader of the House would, too. I cannot help feeling that it cannot be a very good plan that persons who are not themselves Members of Parliament, should be in a position to lobby in the Committee Corridor.

Mr. Speaker: As I thought I had made clear, that really is a matter for the House and not for me.

Professor Savory: I should like to plead for indulgence in this matter. The representations that were made had not the slightest effect upon me. I should have thought that it was a most unfair procedure to abstain from attending a Standing Committee to prevent a quorum being formed on a Bill. In my view, such conduct would have been altogether unworthy of a Member representing a great University.

Sir Frank Sanderson: May I say a few words regarding Commander Powell and the position he holds with the Inter-Parliamentary Union? When it is suggested that the secretary of that Union should abstain from any other activities, I think it is only fair that I, as one who has been associated with that organisation before and since Commander Powell took the secretaryship, should say that the position is really more or less an honorary one. Until quite recently the payment which he received was a nominal fee of 50 guineas a year. Even today his fee is £250 a year, and it is known by all those associated with the Inter-Parliamentary Union that not only is Commander Powell a man of the highest integrity, but that he has worked day and night and has done a great work in the activities, development and welfare of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Whether or not the Inter-Parliamentary Union is to have an official, full-time paid secretary is, I submit, a matter for the Union to consider and not this House.

Mr. Speaker: I think I have made it clear that I did not wish to make any accusation at all against Mr. Powell. I stated the facts, and I hope now that the Inter-Parliamentary Union, having heard what I said, will take the matter into consideration.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: In respect of lobbying, is there not a difference between ordinary lobbying as we understand it and any member of the public trying to prevent an hon. Member from carrying out a duty to attend a Standing Committee, to which he has been appointed by the Selection Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that was a matter for the House and not for me, as I explained.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As the deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to me in connection with this matter, I only wish to say that I personally think there is point in what the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. Mac-Andrew) has said. As for myself, I see no reason why we should dissent from the view that you, Mr. Speaker, have expressed, which, if I may say so, I think is right.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions' of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 79.

Division No. 298.]
AYES
[3.41 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Delargy, H. J.


Albu, A. H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dodds, N. N.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Alpass, J. H.
Burden, T. W.
Dye, S.


Attewell, H. C.
Byers, Frank
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. G. R.
Callaghan, James
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Austin, H. Lewis
Champion, A. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Ayles, W. H.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Collick, P.
Ewart, R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Collins, V. J.
Farthing, W. J.


Bartlell, V.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Barton, C.
Crawley, A.
Foot, M. M.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Crossman, R. H. S
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Beswick, F.
Daggar, G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Bing, G. H. C.
Daines, P.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Binns, J.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Blackburn, A. R.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Grey, C. F.


Bottomley, A. G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Grierson, E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Bramall, E. A.
Deer, G.
Hale, Leslie


Brook, D. (Halifax)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil




Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Hardy, E. A.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Simmons, C. J.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Skeffington, A. M.


Herbison, Miss M.
Mellish, R. J.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Holman, P.
Messer, F.
Skinnard, F. W.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Mikardo, Ian
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Houghton, Douglas
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Snow, J. W.


Hoy, J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Monslow, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Murray, J. D.
Symonds, A. L.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Janner, B.
O'Brien, T.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Oliver, G. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Orbach, M.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Jenkins, R. H.
Paget, R. T.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shiplce)
Palmer, A. M. P.
Viant, S. P.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Pannell, T. C.
Walker, G. H.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Parker, J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Keenan, W.
Pearson, A.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Piratin, P.
Warbey, W. N.


Kinley, J.
Popplewell, E.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Levy, B. W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Upton, Lt.-Col. M.
Proctor, W. T.
Wigg, George


Logan, D. G.
Randall, H. E.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Longden, F.
Ranger, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Lyne, A. W.
Reeves, J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


McAdam, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wise, Major F. J.


McEntee, V. La I.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wyatt, W.


McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Yates, V. F.


Mack, J. D.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)



MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Royle, C.
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Bowden.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Segal, Dr. S.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Mellor, Sir J.


Asshelon, Rt. Hon. R.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Nicholson, G.


Barlow, Sir J.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Baxter, A. B.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Gridley, Sir A.
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bower, N.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hope, Lord J.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Butcher, H. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Snadden, W. M.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'flr'n W'[...])
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Channon, H.
Langford-Holt, J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Studholme, H. G.


De la Bé re, R.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Turton, R. H.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Drewe, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Walker-Smith, D.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Duthie, W. S.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Eccles, D. M.
Marples, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Major Conapt and Colonel Wheatley.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)



Erroll, F. J.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INDIA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.49 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The reason for the Bill is stated in the Title. It is to:
Make provision as to the operation of the law in relation to India, and persons and things in any way belonging to or connected with India, in view of India's becoming a Republic while remaining a member of the Commonwealth.
In Paris in 1919, after the first world war, not everybody was wholly sure that India and the self-governing Dominions should be accepted as nations, as separate signatories of the treaties and as separate members of the League of Nations. The Dominion leaders and their delegations soon finished off those doubts. The Dominions never behaved, thank God, in the Assembly of the League of Nations as satellites of Britain. Indeed Lord Balfour declared in the Third Assembly that up to then the members of the British Commonwealth had never voted together except in opposition to intellectual co-operation. By their service to mankind and by their work in national institutions, the Dominions soon established their international position and when the Balfour Declaration was made in 1926, it was already clear to everyone that it made no new constitutional change—it simply recorded changes which events, the practice of the Government's new constitutional conventions, had brought about.
But doubt still existed about India among our foreign friends, among Indians and even here. I always answered that although India was not then self-governing, her membership of the League of Nations was a pledge of full nationhood for India within a short period of years. Today India's nationhood is complete. Today India, like Pakistan and Ceylon, speaks with her own voice in the councils of mankind.
The growth of the nationhood of the Dominions has been one of the epic stories of the last 100 years. It is one

of the dynamic hopeful currents in world affairs today. Nationhood has come from freedom; and that freedom is complete. It means sovereign independence in every facet of every Commonwealth nation's life. It includes the right—that was implicit in the Statute of West-Minister in 1931, and indeed in the Bill which we passed for Canada on Friday last—to determine the form of constitution under which a Commonwealth country shall live. All parties in all Commonwealth countries have fully accepted that proposition for many years.
In pursuance of that right, and in fulfilment of principles which they declared before they came to power, India's leaders, with the support of their elected Parliament, have decided that India shall become a Republic, with a President of its own. On 26th January, 1950, the establishment of the Republic will be formally and solemnly declared. But Pandit Nehru, on behalf of his Government and people, also declared that India desired to remain a member of the Commonwealth.
These two decisions faced the other Governments of the Commonwealth with a new problem, something which they have never had to face before. Could a nation become a Republic, could its territory cease in law to be part of the Dominions of the King, and could that nation yet remain a full member of the Commonwealth? That new question concerned not us alone nor us and India alone; it concerned in equal measure every self-governing member of the Commonwealth. After lengthy preparatory consideration the Prime Ministers met to deal with it in April last, and everyone is familiar with their decision.
They recognised that India had the right to decide her own constitution for herself; they warmly welcomed her desire to remain within the Commonwealth; they felt that this was no time to weaken the links between the peace-loving and freedom-loving nations of the world; they realised that the genius of the Commonwealth, the secret of its growth, had lain and still lay in its power to adapt its law and institutions to changing relations of the world. They remembered, too, that its strength had never come from written constitutions, rules or elaborate institutional machinery,


but had grown with the growth of freedom throughout its lands. They were anxious that the question of the Monarchy, so dear to so many people in so many lands "should not," in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition be:
a barrier to the inclusion of India as a Republic in the Commonwealth.
They accordingly agreed on a solemn declaration, unanimously accepted by all the other nations, whose relation with the Crown had not been changed, by which India remained a full and equal member of the Commonwealth, by which she accepted the King as the symbol of the free association of its independent members and as such the Head of the Commonwealth, by which, again in the words of the Leader of the Opposition,
the vital significance and value of the Monarchy seems to be enhanced…,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1949; Vol. 464. c. 373.]
It was implicit in the historic decision that the other links between India and the Commonwealth should not be weakened, that our friendship should be undiminished, that our practical cooperation should continue in the future as in the past, and that India and Indian citizens would continue to enjoy the rights and privileges which they had hitherto enjoyed.
But if this is to happen in the United Kingdom there must be legislation by our Parliament. When India ceases to be in law part of His Majesty's Dominions, innumerable provisions in our Statute Book will forthwith cease to apply to India and Indians unless something new is done. The Government, therefore, have laid this Bill before the House. We have sought to make it comprehensive so that it shall cover all the many questions that may arise. We have sought also to make it as simple and flexible as it can be.
May I say a few words about its Clauses? Clause 1 (1) provides that when India becomes a Republic the whole of our existing law shall continue to apply to India, to Indians and to their property as it would have applied if India had not become a Republic. This means that Indians will continue to have in this country the same rights and privileges as they have today. It means that the trade preferences between India and ourselves will continue; it means that in

general all the provisions of our law will, in respect of Indians and Indian property, remain in force whereever they are in force now.
In Clause 1 (2) the same applies to Indians and Indian property in Colonies, Protectorates and United Kingdom trust territories. I add that what is said in subsection (2) is subject to the phrase in subsection (1):
until provision to the contrary is made by the authority having power to alter that law….
That means that where Colonial Legislatures now have the right to do so, they will still retain the right to amend their law as it applies to India, to Indians and to Indian property. I should add perhaps that Colonial Legislatures have not the right to legislate in respect of citizenship. The second paragraph of subsection (2) is a piece of draftsman's shorthand. It avoids the need to set out here various parts of Sections 30 to 33 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, and the provisions of an Order in Council made in pursuance of that Act. The draftsmen have provided very neatly for all that in a couple of lines.
Clause 1 (3) gives His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom the power to modify the existing law to which this Bill extends by Order in Council. We think it desirable to take this power because after the new Indian Constitution has come into force the Indian Parliament may. require to pass a good deal of new legislation. That in turn may require substantive or formal amendment of our United Kingdom law as well. But the amendments we require may well be of minor importance, and it might be a waste of Parliamentary time to come to the House on every occasion when the need arose. Every Order in Council will of course be subject, as subsection (3) makes plain, to annulment by negative resolution in either House. There are precedents for subsection (3) in other Acts which deal with constitutional change. We had a similar provision in the Ceylon Independence Act, 1947, in the Mandated and Trust Territories Act, 1947, and in the Palestine Act, 1948. There is, therefore, nothing new or dangerous in it and I think the House may safely agree to its inclusion.
In Clause 1 (4) it is laid down that if an Order in Council should lead to an increase in public expenditure out of moneys provided by Parliament, or out of the Consolidated Funds, it shall be defrayed out of such moneys provided by Parliament or out of the Fund. My advisers consider it extremely unlikely that any such increased demands will ever be asked for as a result of an Order in Council; but it is just possible that there may be, and therefore this subsection appears, and a Money Resolution will be required.
That is the Bill. The case in its support lies in the events and the decisions by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, which I have already recalled. Its smooth and easy passage will, I am convinced, serve the interests which each party have at heart. Pandit Nehru, when he became Prime Minister of India, and leader of 300 million people, assumed responsibilities before which any statesman might have quailed. He has had difficulties, very acute and largely unforeseen, which he has had to overcome. He has brought to his task not only his superb intellectual attainments, but vision and courage which the world admired. His work, and that of his colleagues in his Cabinet and administration, mean everything to India. Their example and their help may mean everything to Asia. We know that the Commonwealth is strengthened, we hope that India will be strengthened also, by their decision to remain within its ranks.
Pandit Nehru spoke to the Canadian Parliament about a month ago. He told them that when India became a Republic its relations with the rest of the Commonwealth would not be weakened. He said:
On the contrary it will have the greater strength that common endeavour derives from a sense that it is inspired and sustained by the free will of free peoples.
What do those words mean for us and for the world? What has the Commonwealth contributed to the progress of mankind? What is its significance in the world today? What does it mean that India will remain an equal member with the rest? In our Commonwealth countries we have established the personal liberty of the individual. The United Nations are still struggling with human rights, but the first Declaration of Human Rights was signed at Runnymede seven centuries ago. We have evolved the prac-

tical technique of representative democratic institutions, of Government by the people for the people. We have shown that Empire can be transformed into Commonwealth by evolution, and not by revolution; by agreement, and not by force.
Our nations have shown, and today it is the most important thing of all, that the winning of sovereign independence can make co-operation between Governments and peoples even closer than it was before; that as sovereign independence is recognised, so the sense of inter-dependance grows stronger and the desire to assert sovereign rights to the detriment of co-operation dies away. Those four great principles are of immense significance in world affairs today. They are as vital to Asia as they are to us. We all rejoice that India will work with us to ensure their triumph, both in East and West. The supreme achievement of the Commonwealth is really this: that the use of lawless force in the relations of its peoples is utterly excluded from the policies, and indeed, from the very thinking of its Governments and of the nations whom they rule.
It is in this partnership that India will remain. It is for these principles that she will work. We shall have a partner whose nationhood is already a major factor in Commonwealth and international affairs, a partner who is destined to material greatness, whose people desire to live by the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, whose chief ambition is to be great in knowledge, in wisdom, in moral and spiritual power.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It is my duty and pleasure to express on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends our agreement with the passage of this Bill. The Bill follows upon the decision taken at the April meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, and the view of the Opposition was then expressed by the Leader of the Opposition the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). Certain of his sentences and observations have been used by the right hon. Gentleman in supporting this Bill and bringing it before the House this afternoon. I cannot, therefore, add very many words to those which have been expressed, but what the right hon. Gentleman said about the development


of nationhood is something which we on this side of the House have always wanted to support.
This autumn I had the honour of attending the first informal conference of representatives of the Commonwealth which has taken place since the April meeting. There we had a powerful, and, if I may say so, a voluble deputation from India, and thanks to their many interventions when they took part in our discussions, they left us in no doubt about their sentiments and feelings. We derived the greatest possible advantage from contact with their thoughts and ideas. It became clear to us after those discussions that, not only with India, but with the other Commonwealth representatives, the question of the status of the individual members of the Commonwealth has now been embalmed and tucked away for ever; and we can approach discussions at a Commonwealth level without having to worry about the question of independence or status at all. That no doubt is a great advantage to the Commonwealth idea and to the strength in the future to which we all look forward.
The Indian decision, as I have already stated, was accepted by us and we were glad that in the course of that decision the Monarchy remained the symbol of the free association of our peoples. We were naturally sorry that the decision did not go another way, but having gone this way, and India having decided to be a Republic, we have willingly accepted the consequences. We look forward in the future to perhaps an even closer collaboration than could have taken place had we in any way thwarted or gone against this decision. At any rate, it is our hope that things will work out in that way.
The right hon. Gentleman himself said that the Bill was a simple one, and it is remarkably simply phrased. For example, the Preamble is in language so simple as to be almost of nursery character. I should like, through the right hon. Gentleman, myself to congratulate the draftsmen on using words of one syllable which we can all readily understand:
To make provision as to the operation"—
"operation"—that is a three-syllable word, and rather longer—
of the law in relation to India, and persons and things in any way belonging to or con-

nected with India, in view of India's becoming a Republic"—
which is a very attractive phrase in a legal document—
while remaining a member of the Commonwealth.
That indeed is simple, and all can understand it. I wish to say on the occasion of the Second Reading Debate that I hope things will work out as simply as this Bill would make them appear.
The first slight complication which may occur is that of the question of citizenship. For example, in the future, India may well pass legislation of her own. Therefore, it is really quite impossible for any of us, who may be supporting this Bill for the reasons I have given this afternoon, to be able to say what the development of these matters may be in the future. All hon. Members should realise that problems may arise in the future—which we hope will not be complicated, but which may have to be solved—not similar to those problems we have already faced. The fact is that independent legislation may be undertaken by the Government of India which may introduce new matters which will call for consideration when they arise.
I have never been particularly anxious about details of nationality or citizenship, on the understanding that nationhood is made more secure and more certain, because, that having been achieved, I believe better relations result. But when we come to the general association of questions of citizenship with subsection (2), it may well be that complications will arise which were not foreseen at the time of the drafting of this Bill. I say that on this occasion, because it would be bad if any of us who were supporting this Bill thought that there were no complications whatever in it and that we could just pass it in vacuo, without raising any important points whatever.
The right hon. Gentleman has discussed the provisions of the Bill itself. He has drawn our attention to the fact that in subsection (1) trade preferences may, and will, continue between us and India as before. It will be remembered that in our many discussions on the subject of India in the past at one stage it was proposed that there should be a treaty between us. It was proposed at that stage that in the treaty should be set out an account of the relations subsisting


between India and this country. That, of course, has now been superseded and passed over by the fact that India is a member of the Commonwealth.
However, it would be very convenient on some occasion if some picture could be given to the British public of the nature of the bonds and understandings which exist between our two countries at present. I say that because in the rarified atmosphere in which the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Nehru live—namely, the atmosphere of Government offices, gadis and other dignified seats of the mighty—these matters are easy to understand, but the details of inter-Commonwealth development and relations are very difficult for the ordinary public to understand. If the Government do not find this an occasion to give us some broader picture than the right hon. Gentleman has been able to give, I hope they will remember that the public would like to hear more, because by understanding our relations a better feeling may well persist between us than even the excellent atmosphere which now prevails.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned subsection (2) which refers to the Colonies. In this connection it would be interesting to know whether the some 50 Colonial Governments involved were consulted before this Bill was drafted. My own impression is that they cannot all have been consulted, but I should be interested to have an answer to that question before we leave this Bill, either now or on a subsequent stage. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the possibility of new legislation being passed and of the effect of subsection (3). He also referred to the possibility of Orders in Council. May I take it from him that these are to be affirmative Orders in Council from one or other House of Parliament? I understand that to be the meaning of subsection (3, b).
When we come to subsection (4), there is some doubt in our minds about the possible incidence of the expenditure arising out of this Bill. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he was correct in saying that in fact a Money Resolution can come into force as a result of an Order in Council or whether it is not usual for a Money Resolution to accompany a Bill. I should also like to ask whether he would perhaps correct his observation and give us further enlighten-

ment about how the House can in future be informed of the incidence of any money charges which might or might not arise from this Bill. However, those are points of detail.
I am sure that we are all in debt to the right hon. Gentleman for the very moving language with which he introduced this Bill. Many of us have devoted the greater part of our working legislative life to problems arising out of India. It it in moving occasion for us to be able to take part in a Bill, however small, which may not cause that atmosphere of excitement, flury and controversy which was associated with the previous great Measure with which I had so much to do but which nevertheless is one of the later acts in a great drama between great countries. We feel that things may not have developed exactly as we foresaw, but they have developed, as is often the case in the history of the British and Indian peoples, in a rather miraculous way.
Any of us who have been closely in touch either with the peoples of India or with her leaders realise that India is a greta power in a vital geographical situation in the world, her influence having gained an even greater advantage since the unfortunate demise and collapse of the Government in China with which, incidentally, Mr. Nehru was on such close terms. In view of that unfortunate occurrence in the history of the world, an even greater burden falls on the Government of India than seemed likely at the time these decisions were taken.
I am sure that it is the wish of both sides of the House that every feeling of goodwill should go forth to the Government of India. We hope that she will face her difficulties in as practical and realistic a manner as possible. I think it should go forth to India today that all sections of opinion in this country are behind the understanding that has been reached and behind this Bill. It would be extremely unfortunate for the development of Commonwealth relations if the Government of any one country was said to be associated with one section of opinion, with one party or with one type of person. I therefore say, quite bluntly, that we on this side of the House are as desirous as anyone not only to make our personal friendships closer with India's peoples and her leaders, but also to make our own activities such as would indicate to


India that we understand her aspirations and her desires for development. This must be a two-way traffic and I hope that if we try to help India she will try to help us. The best way in which India can help is by educating us in her difficulties.
I wish to add one sentence to the sentiments enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman by saying that it would be inappropriate upon this occasion while we are celebrating a Bill in honour of a decision by India, to forget two other countries—namely, Pakistan and Ceylon—just because they took a decision, perhaps of a more orthodox but of a no less a remarkable character, to remain full members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It would be very valuable if a message could go out to them from this House that we try to understand the difficulties of Pakistan and of Ceylon. We understand the acute problems, not only administrative but also social and economic, with which they are faced. The fact that these two countries have taken a different decision does not mean that we are forgetting them today because we are celebrating an occasion when India as a Republic is joining the Commonwealth. Our future depends upon absolute impartiality between all our Commonwealth friends overseas and it depends also on complete understanding. If the few observations that have been made from both sides of the House today lead to a better understanding, then this will have been a valuable occasion.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I wish to add a few words of commendation and congratulation to His Majesty's Government upon the introduction of this Bill. I should also like to add my congratulations to those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations for the excellent way in which he introduced this Measure, and the sentiments he expressed. This Bill is a necessary corollary following upon the momentous decision of India to be a Republic but, nevertheless, to remain a member of the Commonwealth. That decision was made with the full approval of all the Prime

Ministers of the independent countries which form the Commonwealth. It secures one most desirable object, namely, continuity in friendship and in relations between India and ourselves. I hope it will help to strengthen the links of friendship between us, and enable us, India, Pakistan, Ceylon and all the other members of the Commonwealth to work in harmony for the common benefit of all, not only within but also without the Commonwealth.
I would like to refer to one matter in the Bill. Personally, I do not like—nor do many other hon. Members of the House like—legislation by Orders in Council. Undoubtedly, a number of matters will have to receive further consideration when further legislation is passed by India after the New Year, and I concur in what the Government proposes and in any changes that may be necessary. In future, that legislation can best be dealt with by Orders in Council, which will, of course, come before this House and will be dealt with here.
Finally, the problems confronting the Governments of India and Pakistan are greater, I believe, than those confronting any other country in the whole world, and all I want to add is that they may be assured of the firm desire of everyone in this country that they should receive every assistance and encouragement in settling these problems. I am glad to be able to join with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken for the Opposition in saying that, in all these matters, all parties are united in wishing well to all the peoples of what used to be the sub-continent of Asia.

4.22 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I rise to speak on this occasion although the House is not very full with a tremendous emotion within me, because this is a very great moment in our history. The Bill now before the House is the crown to that great record of the history of our association with India and with the Commonwealth. It is an occasion which marks a very outstanding achievement of British democracy.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who spoke for the Opposition, referred to the rarefied atmosphere in which he


alleged my right hon. Friend and others were working in this connection. I believe that that atmosphere is in a sense rarefied, because we are really standing here today on a mountain top of human achievement in regard to the British Commonwealth. It is a wonderful and unprecedented thing that has happened, and I believe that many of us who are conscious of this feel that we are not only able today to congratulate Great Britain, India and the Commonwealth as a whole, but are also able to feel proud of this very great decision which has been made as between India and Great Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth. For we are pointing the way to a new kind of human freedom of association in the world, which I believe will be unending in its effect on human history.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I find myself in the temperamental situation of agreeing, not only with the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) who spoke for the Conservative Opposition, but with the Liberal leader, too. Nevertheless, this is an important moment, and I hope one might be allowed—especially one like myself, who comes from the outer Empire—to express a little regret that it was impossible to find some other solution.
I remember, about 10 years ago, when five or six of us from the House of Commons were dining with the then German Ambassador, Herr von Ribbentrop—it was one of the things we used to do, and I make no apology for it—we were discussing the possibility of another war. Ribbentrop said, "If there is another war, your Empire will collapse." He was an offensive man; he was a German, and therefore he could not help it. He said, "After all, what is it that holds the Empire together? It is only moonbeams." He was so pleased about that remark that he repeated it. One of our party said to him, "Well, Ambassador, when you have cut a chain, which is something you would understand, the chain is cut; but, when you cut a moonbeam, the moonbeam is still there." I had the somewhat doubtful privilege of seeing Herr von Ribbentrop sentenced to death at Nuremberg. It was a strange sight. I almost felt that I could have

passed him a note saying, "You said that our Empire was held together by moonbeams."
Therefore, I think that this Bill today is a credit to the spirit of the Commonwealth and Empire, which is essentially that of compromise, though I find it imperative to say that I am sorry that India could not take the same decision as Pakistan and Ceylon and be content to be a Dominion, as the other Dominions were. I realise that it was difficult, because I remember that, when Pandit Nehru came here some years before the war and addressed a private meeting of Members of all parties upstairs, how bitterly he attacked this country, and, at that meeting, I asked him if he had anything to say in favour of the British Raj, and he replied quite frankly, "That is not my rô le; my rô le is to attack the British Raj."
While I think that the Prime Minister specially deserves every credit for this achievement, because it is a racial thing and we cannot judge it in the same way as we judge Australia or Canada, yet the very fact that we have taken the Republic of India into our association of nations does loosen that intangible thread which holds us together, and we would be less than honest if we did not admit that. After all, my own country of Canada has a double association with this country and the United States, but it is strong enough to feel proud that it has the King's representative in the Governor-General, who opens Parliament in Canada and speaks of "My Ministers," and Canada is strong enough not to resent it.
Nevertheless, when all that is said, I think this has been a great endeavour in our tolerant basic philosophy and in the ingenuity, rather than the intellectual wisdom, of the British race. I associate myself with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden. We of the Conservative Party, if we come to power, as I think is likely after the next General Election, though we shall be sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister will then have to give up his important task, shall, nevertheless, carry on with the same feeling and sensibility.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Wyatt: I think one should say to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) that the


real reason why the Indian nation has felt unable to accept the Monarchy as the direct symbol of association is that in India the struggle for nationalism and the fight for independence has been more acute than it has been, rightly or wrongly, in Pakistan, and so, of necessity, the Crown was a symbol of imperialism, since it was the Imperial Crown of India. It is quite simple to understand, if one puts oneself into the position of a nationalist in India, why the Crown should be regarded in that way.
With everything else that the hon. Member said I fully concur, and I have risen only to try to reinforce, so far as I am able, some of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who as we all know has always struggled here to get a right view of India, Pakistan and Ceylon within his own party. I am glad to see that, apparently, he has at last achieved greater success in this direction than he has with the Industrial Charter. At any rate, he has made some considerable progress along the road. I agree with him that it is absolutely vital that in these new Dominions there should not be a feeling that one sort of Government in this country is going to be more hostile towards them than another sort. If there was such a feeling, it was entirely due to the remarks of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but if they have now reformed, then that is a very good sign for future strength in the Commonwealth.
I agree most emphatically that it is vital for us to have far more details of the working of this Commonwealth of ours. India is going to be a Republic within the Commonwealth. Hon. Members must realise that there is a very strong body of opinion in India today which does not want to be in the Commonwealth, and which thinks that India has taken a wrong step, I regard that body of opinion, even though part of it incorporates the Socialist Party of India, as profoundly mistaken. I believe it holds that view because it has not the necessary information on which to base a proper judgment.
It has been the custom during the lifetime of this Parliament—and I must say that it has always much distressed me—to treat the Commonwealth as a very delicate instrument and as something which is so holy and sacred that one

may not examine and analyse it. Throughout the life of this Parliament we have not had a Commonwealth Debate as such, which seems a shocking thing. Unless publicity is thrown upon it and upon its workings, and even upon the stresses and strains which it may undergo, then we are not going to follow its processes as closely as we should. Commonwealth conferences are so confidential that we never hear exactly what has been discussed. Everybody is frightened to say anything severe—and this applies to the country of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter)—in case the Dominion concerned should be displeased, although nobody living in Canada or India minds saying something severe about this country. Therefore, we never get to grips with these problems.
I was recently amazed, when talking to people from the Indian Socialist Party, to find that they have no notion whatever as to the arrangements which operate to give the Commonwealth countries—India and Pakistan included—some priority in trade from this country. That is a most significant feature of the Commonwealth. It is a fact that, with regard to many items of scarce capital equipment, we give priority to Commonwealth countries just because they are Commonwealth countries and because they are associated with us in a special way. But these Indians had no notion of that. There is no proper expression of what is being done in this way. The same sort of thing applies to all ranges of imports and exports.
They have no real notion that what is going on in regard to Burma is something of great importance in the history of this Commonwealth. For the first time we have really got going in regard to proper consultation upon a joint approach to a country outside the Commonwealth, events in which may be of importance to the Commonwealth as a whole. This matter is not now being decided as it would have been in the past by His Majesty's Government deciding whether or not to give aid or a loan to Burma on her own account. It is being done by bringing India and Pakistan—countries closest to Burma—together with the other Commonwealth countries in a conference.
One does not know how a Commonwealth conference works. I do not know what happens when the representatives


of these countries come to London or meet at Colombo. One does not know what decisions are reached or the form in which the various matters are dealt with, or what exactly arises out of them. It is of great importance to give publicity to all these matters and to consider, perhaps, whether we need more accurate and exact machinery to settle possible frictions and disputes within the Commonwealth as well.
There is no doubt that the fact that India is in the Commonwealth is going to enable her to play a much greater part in her leadership of South-East Asia. She will get enormous support from the fact that she is in the Commonwealth and from the material and less material things that will flow from the West towards India because of it. This is the great and really the only living link which exists between East and West. The link between the Dutch and Indonesia is of a smaller and hollower character. This is the beginning of a real world federation which is being born because both parties genuinely want it and because there is benefit to both arising from it. We do not know half enough about it. Today we are faced with two systems. We are faced with the Russian Empire in which free peoples progress towards slavery, and with the British Empire in which enslaved peoples progress towards freedom. It is important that when we help those countries which progress towards freedom, everyone in that country should realise what is happening and the nature of the support which we give to it afterwards.
I would conclude by agreeing with the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden when he stresses the importance of impartiality from this country to the various members of the Commonwealth. For one reason or another there has been a tendency in the past for groups to identify themselves with either Pakistan or India and to make people in those countries feel that there is some kind of special link between one group in this country and their country which is different from the link between another group and their country. It is important that we should always try to remember that they are all equal partners in this association, and we should not seek to prefer or laud one above the other. If we can do that and give much more publicity to the details

of the working of the Commonwealth, we shall have it on a much stronger and surer basis. There seems to be nothing to be gained by secrecy, but everything to be gained by the fullest publicity.

4.38 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: I feel that very little can be added to the speech of the Minister and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who put our case with such admirable lucidity and such full knowledge. I propose, if I may, in a few sentences to bring this discussion back to the high note of seriousness which characterised the speeches of the Minister, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden and of the two hon. Members who immediately followed him. Those who studied the movement of affairs in the East saw quite clearly that we were moving towards the stage which we have reached today. When the Burma Independence Bill was before this House, I ventured to say that we in the Commonwealth would have to sit down and sandpaper our brains to see if there was a flexibility in the Commonwealth to enable those parts of it which preferred a different form of Government from our own still to remain closely associated with it. That suggestion fell upon stony ground at the time; but it has now fructified in the Bill which is today before the House.
I ask the House to consider the tremendous character of the events in which we are participating today. For nearly three years a Constituent Assembly in India has been hammering out and fashioning a new constitution which will come into force on 26th January next. That constitution does not closely follow our own practice. There are important respects in which it varies from it; it is not just a pale imitation of our own form of Government but rightly and properly is adapted to Indian conditions sui generis. Nevertheless that constitution embodies the British spirit of freedom, of liberty, of the rights of the individual, the protection of minorities and the rule of law.
It is a matter of no small significance, when we look back upon the storms and passions which have moved India in her progress towards independence, that now, of her own free and unqualified will, she has expressed an ardent desire to remain a member of our Commonwealth of


nations and this with the full concurrence of the sister nations. Whether that is for her advantage or not she must decide; I have no doubt whatsoever that it will be of immeasurable advantage to the Commonwealth, to the world and to the whole human race. I feel that those wise and courageous men who have directed India's affairs in conditions of almost unparalleled difficulty since independence was established, are rendering a great service to freedom, to liberty, to the human race in the step which they have taken with our cordial and generous acquiesence.
None of us can be blind to the warning which my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden has given as to the difficulties which may occur in future. Perhaps the more we know, the more those difficulties may seem to loom before us. But for my part I have never been, and I will not, be baulked by the knowledge that there are these difficulties. Sufficient for me to tread the path and look straight on. If these difficulties arise, can we not approach them in the spirit of Napolean's marshals—If it is difficult, it is done; if it is impossible, it will take a little time? When I look back over the events which have led to this remarkable proof not only of the flexibility of our Commonwealth system, not only of the manner in which it has been adapted to deal with great and almost unprecedented developments, but also to the future in Asia, we can confidently say that the work which has been done in this Parliament has been well and truly done in a wise and liberal spirit.
There are two thoughts which always come back to my mind when we approach this decisive phase in the polity of India. First, the words of a great Indian patriot and Indian nationalist, an older man than Pandit Nehru, who was one of the most accomplished and high-minded speakers who used the English language. That was the right hon. Srinavastra Sastri, who at the end of a tour round the world electrified a dryasdust Simla audience by proclaiming that the Commonwealth is the greatest instrument for the promotion of human freedom and liberty that the world has ever seen. I think that is profoundly true today. The other words were used in another place, during a rather critical

Debate; they are that we here in Parliament, and we the British people are, with our colleagues in India, now and always to the utmost of our power, and the very limit of our resources, pledged to help them as equal partners in the work in which they are engaged.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Skinnard: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and all of us in this House would have been disappointed had the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) not caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, on this great occasion. On the subject of our relations with our great sister nation of India, he has always proved a sound guide, and it is not without real justification that he claimed some gift of prophecy in that speech in this House to which he referred so movingly just now. We are indebted not only to the hon. Gentleman for his faith in the future but to the caution behind the good will which was implicit in the speech of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler).
I am particularly glad that in no speech to which the House has listened today has there been any sense of uttering a Nunc dimittis. Rather are we witnessing the opening of a door into a more glorious future in the co-operation between our two nations. We do not know what lies beyond the door. This is merely the turning of the handle today. What we are sure of is that because of the mutual respect which the Indian and the British peoples have for each other, a respect which is all the greater since it was gained very often when there were periods of great antagonism, which antagonisms have been resolved by great statesmanship and a feeling of affection, we have every right to believe that the adhesion of a Republic of India to the Commonwealth is one of the greatest steps in the development of our comity of nations.
I do not share the feelings of regret expressed by some of my fellow countrymen that India has not chosen the Dominion path selected by Pakistan and Ceylon. The flexibility of the Commonwealth has been stressed by several speakers, and surely it is not strange in a Commonwealth and Empire where we have ruling sovereigns whose subjects are not British subjects but whose rulers are,


that we should now find a sovereign republic. Surely there have been paradoxical arrangements before, and yet they have served well over many years. As came out in the discussion on the Nationality Bill, we have protectorates and protected states; we have sultanates and emirates, and what in effect are crowned republics in the great Dominions, all within the Commonwealth and all working well together.
The fact that India had special difficulties was well brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt)—difficulties greater in solution than those experienced by either Pakistan or Ceylon. Despite those difficulties, she has elected to remain within the Commonwealth, and that is a measure of her knowledge that this will be to the mutual advantage of every member of the Commonwealth and for the furtherance of the ideals of world peace which India's Prime Minister has so well expressed in the United States recently. I was particularly glad that Pandit Nehru chose this particular time to go to the United States when the choice of adhesion had been made and the agreement arrived at. He went to the United States as the spokesman of a great independent people, united in their Republic, and yet armed also with the right to speak for the British Commonwealth of Nations. It must have seemed strange to some of our former critics in the United States, but I think it was a particularly opportune time for that to happen because it set a pattern which the world might well follow.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations did not say very much about the Bill in his opening speech, and I think he did not say very much about the Bill for two very good reasons. First, what he was saying was being said not only to people in this House, but also to the peoples of the great sister nation and the peoples of the world—and was being said very well and in a very moving manner. Secondly, there is not very much one can say about the Bill as such.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has referred to the very able way in which this very short Bill has been drawn—drawn so ably

but so briefly that one wonders, in amazement, whether it really can carry out all it purports to do. After all, however, it is one of the characteristics of the great State documents of history that they have all been drawn in short and moving and effective terms and it may well be that this will be added to the great State documents, as certainly this afternoon will be added to the great days of history.
On all sides of the House we find agreement in support of this Measure. On no side do we find any denigration and we can send to this great new sister nation on this day a message of new comradeship and of hope for a new renaissance in the East—a renaissance on the part of a country with a great history, which has made a great contribution to world culture and which has an opportunity of making an even greater contribution in the future. One would wish, having said that, to say no more, but the opportunities given to a back bencher to raise important matters are so few that he cannot continue self-abnegation to that extent.
I want to say something which has already been said by my hon. Frend the Member for one of the Birmingham constituencies—I never remember one part of Birmingham from another—

Mr. Wyatt: Aston.

Mr. Hale: —and it is a point which I have myself been trying to put time and again in the last five years. As my hon. Friend said, there have not been very many opportunities because we have not had a Debate on Commonwealth affairs. The point which my hon. Friend made is a fundamental one. Of course it is a much more fundamental point when one is embodying in the Commonwealth still another new Republic. We must realise that the constitutional position of the Commonwealth still is that the Treaty-making powers of the Crown are exercised by the Cabinet of this particular sister nation. I believe this point is all the more important today because I believe that the rô le which the Commonwealth of Nations may play in the next few years may be a decisive one in world history. I believe the contribution that the Commonwealth can make in the years to come, whether it be with a united Europe or not, may be a decisive one in the whole history of the world; it may be decisive for peace and for prosperity.
There has always been this fundamental problem: with all the good will on every side—and there is abundant good will—there has never been an opportunity for consultation. The very constitutional position of Britain itself means that some decisions have to be made here and made almost without consultation, almost without information, so that the sister nations are often faced with a virtual fait accompli. I put that point as often as I could when I came back from Canada in 1945 because the trouble there was that they complained that they never had the fullest access to all sources of information. I put that point again when I came back from Australia in 1948, and for the same reasons and on the same grounds. It may be very remarkable, when we come to think of the history of the last two or three years, that we have created a consultative constituent assembly for the nations of Western Europe, in which we are participating, but that we have failed to create any consultative organisation especially for the Commonwealth nations, except the sort of ad hoc conferences which are usually summoned to consider special matters and which are convened from time to time.
I suggest that there should be a consultative organisation—not of course a legislative organisation, but a consultative organisation which would have access to all sources of information and which would have the opportunity of making recommendations, both economic and international, on the basis of a united policy.

Mr. Baxter: I intervene only for the purpose of supporting what the hon. Member is saying. Would he not consider that it might be a very good thing if say, at a period of every two years, an Empire Parliament, not with legislative powers, met in one of the Dominions or, say, in India, as the case may be—a Parliament which His Majesty the King might be able to open? There, all Empire measures could be discussed, again without legislative powers, thus making all of us far more intimate with Governments of the other Dominions and creating the opportunity for the introduction of any broad resolutions which were necessary?

Mr. Hale: I would not dissent from that at all—or rather on reflection on the terms of the Bill, it raises a query in one direction. Certainly I had in mind something much smaller and something which met much more frequently. Once every two or three years would not meet the purpose I had in mind. I did not want a Parliament as such but a consultative organisation and I want it to have access to all relevant sources of information which are fundamental.
At this historic moment one does not want to raise doubts, but we can see very great problems which are inevitable, partly as a consequence of this Measure and partly as a consequence of the essential development of the Commonwealth. We can see in South Africa a trend which is certainly away from the ideals we have in mind, and we can see the continued necessity for the closest consultation. I had hoped that this might have been taken as one of the opportunities for considering that particular problem. Of course, it is of practical importance. The Republic of India has already put an embargo on goods made in my constituency, textile and machinery—or some number of these; and I do not raise that as a point of criticism, because India must consider her own problems and the point of view of her own people. But these things are all the more reason for continued consultation and co-operation in the future, and I urge my right hon. Friend to consider this as a matter of really grave and fundamental importance.
In conclusion, may I say this? I was the last hon. Member to rise to speak in this Debate and it may be that nobody else may seek to catch your eye, Sir; I would not know. I should like to reiterate that I do not believe there is any one in this House today who has not felt pride in taking part in this historic day. I do not want to make, and have not made, a single party point of any kind, but at least we can say to the members of the new sister nation how much we rejoice that some of the prophets of woe, from any side, who were heard at the time the Prime Minister made his historic declaration, have been falsified by events and that India, Pakistan and Ceylon have, on the whole, passed through the inevitable troubles of their reconstitution with the minimum possible of suffering and distress and with the maximum hope of success


in the future. Although things have happened which every one deplores and regrets, I do not think there is anyone who can but feel that this great change has been made with amazing success. Every one of us wishes to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the supreme felicity of his position today in being able to come to the House and bring this Bill before us.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I welcome very much what has been said this afternoon. I think I welcomed literally every word spoken by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) and the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition which he quoted. I also agree with the tribute paid to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed); I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) said about him. For many years he has rendered great service to the course of friendship between the peoples of the United King dom and the peoples of India and Pakistan, and I think he felt this afternoon that his work has borne fruit. It will be of value to generations to come. I endorse what was said about Pakistan and Ceylon by the two right hon. Gentlemen who spoke at the beginning. I should like to pay my tribute to the great leaders of those two countries, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan and Mr. Senanayake, who have had to face very formidable tasks and who have done so with a striking measure of success. I was much gratified by what was said about the drafting of the Bill, and I will pass on the tributes to those who did the work.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden said that while it was a simple Bill, it contained a possibility of complications in the future. It is very true. He said that perhaps India would pass a Bill on citizenship. I think it quite likely—indeed, I think it very probable—that India will make a new law of citizenship, which under the constitution which has been adopted they are very well able to do. I think it quite likely, in that event, that we may have to pass new legislation here. On any matter of controversial or substantial importance we shall not seek to act under Clause I (3) by Order in Council. I give the House that pledge. We want by this subsection to save Parlia-

mentary time and to do the many jobs which will be required, but with which it would not be worth while to trouble the House. I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the language used in subsection (3, b):
An Order in Council under this section—
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
That is what has been done in similar Acts of Parliament before, and I hope that, when we discuss this in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman may agree that it is right.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Does it mean, in fact, an affirmative Resolution?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Order enters into force, but can be negatived at once by either House by negative Resolution. I think that has been done before.

Mr. Butler: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. He will remember that this question of affirmative Resolution was raised in a prominent manner in the course of discussion on the India Bill, so I dare say we may have a little talk about it at a later stage.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I shall be very happy to talk about it as much as the right hon. Gentleman desires. It is what is in the Palestine Act and the other Acts to which I have previously referred.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we had consulted the Governments of our various Colonial dependencies. I should not like to give him the assurance that they have all been consulted about the terms of the Bill, but they have been kept in touch with all the developments of our relations with India; they knew this Bill was coming forward, and there is no reason to suppose they object. If they did, they would have told us, I feel certain. They have no grounds for objection, because they can alter their own law at any time. Their powers with regard to their own legislation are not affected by this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Money Resolution. I am advised that as it is just possible that some moneys may be required in execution of the Bill, a Money Resolution is needed, and a Money Resolution is on the Order Paper today in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. If I could give


the right hon. Gentleman an example of how such a charge could arise, if he desires it I shall do so in Committee. It seems to me rather fantastic, but anything is possible, and that is why we have put in the subsection and that is why the Money Resolution is there.

Mr. Butler: My point was that the Money Resolution could not arise out of an Order in Council, and, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman has answered it by saying that the Money Resolution arises out of this Bill.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, it does. That is it.
The right hon. Gentleman and many other Members talked about the importance of giving to our own people, to other Commonwealth peoples, and to the nations of the world, a picture of what the Commonwealth really means—what the day to day Commonwealth relations are really like. I have sought to do that within the limits of my powers, as he has, in Chatham House, and, as he has, on the wireless in the Home Service, and, as he has, on the wireless in Canada and other overseas territories. I lose no opportunity I can find to bring home to our own people and to the Commonwealth peoples the meaning of the meetings which we hold and the work that has been accomplished. I am assured by the Under-Secretary of State, who is a great expert in this matter, that, in fact, our publicity work, the organisation of information about Commonwealth affairs, both within the Commonwealth and elsewhere, has been enormously improved since the end of the war, and I think that the House may take it that it is certain that is so. Of course, I should welcome Debates in this House on Commonwealth affairs. They do not take place because they are not asked for. It is not the doing of the Government.
But I would repudiate the suggestion—if it can be made—that was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) that decisions at Commonwealth meetings are not made known. In fact, they are set out in solemn declarations which are laid before the world, and I think he will find, if he reads those declarations, and the speeches which are made about them, by those who have taken part in the discussions, a pretty complete picture has been given.

Mr. Wyatt: I do read all those statements with great care, but my main objection is that they give only a broad, general picture of what happens, whereas what I should very much like to see would be illustrations of what it means in fairly small matters, for it is only in that way that we can persuade them of the utility of the functional arrangements,

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is in the small matters, and in the actions of the individual Governments, that the decisions of Commonwealth meetings are interpreted—in innumerable actions taken by individual Governments. Questions are sometimes asked about them here. There are debates in other Parliaments, if not in this, and I seek in every way I can to make the decisions and their meanings known.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) suggested that there ought to be a more elaborate machinery, and the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) suggested an Empire Parliamentary meeting every two years. When I was at Cambridge, now some 40 years ago, there was an organisation known as the Round Table which was established with very powerful support to foster the idea of imperial federation. It worked in all the Commonwealth countries. There are people, I believe, still at Bigwin Inn with the right hon. Gentleman who were fighting that cause. In that period, the machinery of the Commonwealth has not been made more elaborate than it was before. That has not been due primarily to this Government—to any Government of this country. It has been due to the fact that the Governments of the Commonwealth on the whole did not feel that elaborate machinery or elaborate rules were required.

Mr. Hale: I am sure my right hon. Friend is not consciously misrepresenting what I said. I went out of my way to say that I did not want anything elaborate, but the reason I wanted something effective was that the people in Canada said, "We knew nothing of the American Loan until it happened," and that the people of South Africa said they did not know about our arrangement with Egypt until it happened, and that the people in Australia said, "We do not have any real information about Britain's agreements with other countries which affected us


commercially until they happened." So we want something effective.

Mr. Baxter: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I put it to him that very few Members of this House have been to Australia or New Zealand because the distance is very great, although not so great now that flying has developed so much.

Mr. Wyatt: They cannot afford the fare.

Mr. Baxter: All right, they cannot afford the fare. The fact is that when Mr. Casey was here a short time ago—I beg the right hon. Gentleman to forgive me for interrupting him so long, but I should like to mention this point—he pleaded that some of us should go out, if only two or three of us, to Australia. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if we had a purely debating parliamentary assembly, with 20 or 30 members from each Parliament—from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa—during the Recesses of the Commonwealth Parliaments, it would have a tremendous dynamic effect, and that we should understand each other's problems much better?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do think that it is important, and I am glad to think that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association does a great deal to meet the need. It is less than 15 months since a conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association met here in London, with more than 80 Members of other Parliaments of the Commonwealth present, and with 60 speakers. It was an outstandingly successful meeting.
There is, of course, a multiplicity of matters for consideration, and when my hon. Friend says that people say they do not know about Egypt, that they do not know about this and do not know about that, I assure him that the number of telegraphic circulars sent out from my office—and this is a figure which I prepared more than a year ago—is 11 times greater than the number which went out in 1938. We have constant meetings here of the High Commissioners of the other Commonwealth countries, which take place in my office; the High Commissioners in other Commonwealth countries are constantly meeting, and there certainly has been no system of con-

Sultation between Governments anything approaching that which we have now. I believe that over the 40 years of which I have spoken, while the machinery may not appear more elaborate on paper, the real co-operation is far greater, and the strength of the whole Commonwealth has been increased manyfold.
I welcome very much what the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden said in his concluding remarks. All parties in the House are behind this Bill, and all parties in the House are behind the Commonwealth. To my mind, it is not strange that Herr von Ribbentrop thought that the Commonwealth would collapse if a war should come. The Nazis did not understand anything of the meaning of the Commonwealth and what makes it strong. That is why they were Nazis. Mr. Leonard Brockington said to me in Canada the other day, "The rope that breaks is the rope which is stretched too far." We do not stretch the Commonwealth rope too far. The Commonwealth grows stronger. In 1940 the Commonwealth saved the world because as a group it stood against aggression, and the Nazis could not destroy us one by one, as they had destroyed their other victims. That Commonwealth example will, in my belief, save us, and will save the world.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — INDIA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the operation of the law in relation to India, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund or of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in sums payable thereout which is attributable to any Order in Council under the said Act for modifying law to which the said Act extends."—[Mr. P. Noel-Baker.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—(Mr. Michael Stewart.)

5.14 p.m.

Colonel Dower: I gather the last Debate lasted longer than was expected, so I shall not take up too much time in making the one or two points which I feel I must make before this Bill passes from us. The Under-Secretary will appreciate that this Bill is supported on all sides of the House, and I do not want the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), that this Bill will not be a very valuable contribution towards recruiting, to go on record without rebuttal. I spend a great deal of my time trying to recruit men for the Army. I do not mind admitting that I have not been particularly successful, but it has not been for want of trying. I know from my experience that this Bill will unquestionably be a great help in that respect by providing in a very short time a considerable number of houses for the Armed Forces.
As the hon. Member for South Ayrshire said, a new recruit cannot be offered a house right away. The Under-Secretary has never pretended that he could be. But I can assure the hon. Member that when every recruit knows that one day, if everything goes well, he will have the opportunity of getting a house when he marries, that will play a large part in inducing men to join the Army. We know that under this Bill 30,000 houses will be provided in five years instead of 10 years, which is a great step forward.
I have served for several years on the Middlesex Territorial Association Building Committee, which has entailed examining, perhaps once or twice every week, the building problems which have to be faced by, not only the Regular Army but the P.S.I.s, the permanent staff, the adjutants and other Regular officers, and the n.c.o.s who are now doing their level best to put the Territorial Army into working operation. I should like an assurance that this Bill will cover all those Regular personnel who are performing their service with the Territorial Army.
The Department at the War Office dealing with the provision of houses has to meet local authorities, so that there are two entirely different types of people dealing with the problem. Both want to make a success of their job, but they do not always quite understand each other, and when this Bill is put into operation I hope the Under-Secretary will take the greatest possible care to see that the right kind of people at the War Office are employed in getting into touch with local authorities, because upon that cooperation will depend the success of this Bill.
Time after time during the passage of this Bill it has been said that it is rather eyewash, and that not a great deal will be done under it. If the houses provided under this Bill are taken as part of the general housing provision for the country, local authorities will realise that this Bill does not mean a cutting down of their programmes, but is merely a means of solving part of their housing problem.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): rose —

Colonel Dower: I appreciate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you do not want the Debate to go on too long, and I am nearly finished.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstands my reason for rising. He is now dealing with the question of administration and not with the contents of the Bill. That was the point to which I wished to direct his attention.

Colonel Dower: I thank you for your guidance, but I am so anxious that this Bill shall be a real success that I must appeal to the Under-Secretary to realise that only by co-operation can success be achieved.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: Before we leave this matter of the provision of additional married quarters for service personnel, may I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War if regard has been had to the housing position of soldiers in occupation of married quarters whose service has finished. By reason of their service in His Majesty's Forces, it often happens that many of these men spend most of


their service overseas, and when due for discharge they cannot get houses anywhere because they have not the residential qualifications which the local authorities demand. At Warley barracks in my own constituency, there are seven ex-Service men all with long periods of service due to be evicted on 25th January on to the streets with their wives and families.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member appears to be dealing with a matter of administration and not with the primary purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Macpherson: I ask my hon. Friend if something can be done to deal with this situation.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I did not intend to intervene in the Debate but for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower). I think that when he reminded us that there would be a great result from this Bill and that it was likely to stimulate his recruiting efforts he was under an illusion. I regard this Bill as a mouse that is not likely to bring forth a mountain in the way of additional houses for the soldiers. I wish that it would. During the Debates on this Bill, I have asked certain questions, and one was: How many houses is it going to mean for Scotland? Although I put that question very precisely both to the Minister of Defence and to the Under-Secretary of State for War, I have not yet had an answer. I do not expect an answer, because they do not know.
I support this Bill because the bait has been held out to me that when the Services have finished with the houses they will be handed over to the civilian population; but is this Bill really going to produce the houses? I would ask the Under-Secretary: Is it not a fact that the only way to get more houses is by providing more building labour and building materials, and where will he get the labour to build the houses for which we are to spend money under this Bill? I do not know. I see the building force gradually getting less, and I do not see any proposal in the Bill for putting workmen on to the job. If that is so, all the hopes that have been expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend are illusions, and

I can only hope that I am not right in that prophecy.

5.23 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Colonel Dower) spoke of the effect of this Bill on recruiting, and I would endorse his judgment of the usefulness of the Bill in that respect, and also express my admiration for the help which he has given us in dealing with this problem of recruiting, particularly with regard to the Territorial Army.
He raised the question of how this Bill would affect the members of the Regular Army employed on duties in connection with the Territorial Army. To answer that question, I must direct him to the provisions of the Bill. We can only build under its provisions houses which are of a kind and in a location where they can be handed over to the civilian authorities should we not need them at some future date. Provided that that condition is fulfilled, there is no reason why the houses should not be used for married quarters for members of the Regular Forces employed on duties with the Territorial Army. It is quite arguable that men doing these duties would be more likely to satisfy the condition with regard to married quarters than men doing other duties.

Colonel Dower: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. One instance which I have in mind is that of an adjutant of a regiment who has to travel 15 miles backwards and forwards every day. A great many of the permanent staff could be housed if houses were erected within a reasonable distance of where they carry out their duties

Mr. Stewart: The purpose of the Bill is to provide married quarters for members of the Regular Forces in the United Kingdom, subject to the condition which is implied in the word "approved" in the Bill. That, in time, will meet the needs of men engaged on Territorial duties and those engaged on other duties.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also urged that we should try to seek good and harmonious relations between the War Office and local authorities. While I agree as to the importance of harmonious relations, I cannot agree that normally any difficulty arises. Our experience


generally is that we are able to get most satisfactory working in these matters between the War Office and the local authorities, and if in any particular instance we have evidence to the contrary, my right hon. Friend and I will be only too glad to do what we can to remove any difficulty.

Colonel Dower: That is an important question.

Mr. Stewart: I would not dispute its importance. The hon. and gallant Member will remember that I dealt with it at some length on the Second Reading of the Bill, when I explained how the Bill would work administratively with the local authorities. I would commend to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) what I said then with regard to the provision of building labour and materials. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson) was referring to a point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, which you did not judge to be within the scope of the Third Reading Debate, so I will not say more than that I am aware of the point he had hoped to raise, and I hope to be able, by giving it the most diligent attention, to produce some result which may be satisfactory to him, although he will appreciate that it is not primarily a War Office responsibility.
Although it is true that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has not been given an answer to the question about Scotland, it is also true that he has on two occasions had explained to him the excellent and convincing reasons why no answer could be given to that question. The overriding condition for any houses built under this Bill is that they shall be in a position to be used by the civilian local authorities, and we cannot, at this stage, say what proportion of the 30,000 houses to be built and approved under the terms of this Bill will fall in Scotland.
There is not the slightest reason to suppose that the need for married quarters for men stationed in Scotland will be met any less adequately than the need for married quarters for men in the forces in any other part of the United Kingdom. He must consider that answer in comparison with the total of 30,000 houses, and that is as far as I or my right hon. Friend can go at this juncture.
We have had, I think, support from every quarter of the House. I was a little surprised to learn from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire that he supported the Bill, and I rejoice to hear it. I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Orders of the Day — MARRIED WOMEN (MAINTENANCE) BILL

Consideration resumed of Lords Amendments [28 th July].

New Clause. —(PROVISIONS AS TO SEPARATION AGREEMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 22, at end, insert new Clause "a":
(1) In determining for the purposes of section four of the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, whether a husband has been guilty of wilful neglect to provide reasonable maintenance for his wife or her infant children, payments made by the husband shall not be deemed to be sufficient to provide such reasonable maintenance by reason only that they are made in accordance with an agreement made between the husband and the wife before the commencement of this Act.
(2) Where an order under paragraph (c) of section five of the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, or under section one of the Married Women (Maintenance) Act, 1920, is made in pursuance of an application under section four of the first-mentioned Act, and the husband is liable, in pursuance of any agreement, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, to make payments to or for the benefit of the wife or any child for whose maintenance provision is made by the order, the liability of the husband under the agreement shall be treated as discharged to the extent of any payments made in pursuance of the order.

Question again proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Monslow.]

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Asterley Jones: May I, with the leave of the House, intervene for the second time in this Debate to say that the promoters of this Bill have now decided to ask the House to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment? I will explain the reasons that have led us to this conclusion. The House will remember that the principal object is to increase the payments which can be ordered by a court of summary jurisdiction to a wife and in favour of the children of a


man who has neglected to maintain, or deserted, or otherwise committed a matrimonial offence against the wife.
During the early stages of the Bill, it was represented to us that it would impose a grave hardship upon those wives who, instead of bringing proceedings before the magistrates, had entered into a voluntary agreement with their husbands out of court for the purpose of securing a certain payment to themselves. It was represented that many such wives had done so knowing full well that if they went to the court they would be able to get only £2 a week, and perhaps 10s. or £1 for the children. It was suggested to us that if we were to say to wives who had such an agreement that their access to the court was barred, it would certainly impose a very great hardship upon them.
During the Committee stage a proposal was put forward to deal with this matter, but the form in which the proposal was put forward did not commend itself to the Committee, and it was then withdrawn upon an undertaking by the promoters that the matter would receive further consideration. It was not until the Bill reached another place that it was possible to find a convenient and workable form of wording to carry out the intentions the promoters had in mind. The Clause now before the House was moved in another place by Lord Crook. It was designed to apply only to agreements entered into before the passing of the Act, which it might be assumed had been entered into by the wife on the assumption that she could get no more by going to court. With that assumption removed, the Clause was designed to enable the wife, not only to go to the court, but to enable the court to decide that there was neglect to provide reasonable maintenance, despite the fact that the husband was keeping up the payments he had agreed to make under the agreement entered into.
When the Clause came back to this House in July, it was very strenuously objected to from various quarters. It was objected to on a variety of grounds. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) took strong objection on the grounds that it was a wholly unwarrantable interference with the freedom of the parties of a marriage to compose their differences

out of court. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) almost as vehemently objected, not only on those grounds, but on a rather different ground, that it unfairly favoured the wife as against the husband. As I understood him, he would have been prepared to agree with the Clause if it had provided an opportunity for the husband also to have the agreement over-ridden by the court.
I understand there was a possibility, had not the Debate been hurriedly adjourned, that the Clause would have been objected to from another quarter on the ground that it was wholly unnecessary because the jurisdiction of the court was perfectly capable of dealing with the situation; indeed, at the present time the wife can go, even without this Clause, to the court and plead her husband's neglect to maintain her, even though he is keeping up his payments. To that, I would say, that there is some substantial doubt which would have been clarified by putting the Clause in the Bill. However, we have been in consultation with the various shades of opinion and with the Home Secretary during the Recess, and we have come to the conclusion, however reluctantly, that this Clause may be of such a controversial nature that it would be unwise to insert it in the Bill.
While I take the view that there is a possibility of injustice which this Clause would have put right without too great an interference with the liberty of the parties, I concede that in all the circumstances it is probably better in a Private Member's Bill, or what started as a Private Member's Bill and has now been officially adopted by the Government, for a controversial Clause of this kind not to be inserted. I ask the House, therefore, to vote against the Motion, and if there should be any Member who may fear that this will precipitate a constitutional crisis with the House of Lords, I venture to suggest that the rather cautious words with which the Lord Chancellor dealt with this matter in another place lead one to suppose that there will be no great resistance to this House reversing their decision.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I very briefly, as one of the hon. Members—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. and gallant Member has already taken part in this Debate and can speak again only by leave of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I, with the leave of the House, say very briefly, as one of the hon. Members to whom reference has been made, that I cordially welcome the statement that has just been made? I think it will remove the bones of contention which stood in the way of agreement.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I am very glad that this course has been taken. I think it is very doubtful whether the Clause changes the law, because at the present time a contract for maintenance does not oust the jurisdiction of the courts to make an order. If it does change the law, there are many of us who, for various reasons, think that it would be a. very dangerous thing and would open the door very wide, placing husbands who have entered into agreements and have committed no matrimonial offences in a very dangerous situation. I am very glad, therefore, that this Clause is being opposed, and I hope there will be no insistence upon it.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): May I also ask leave of the House to speak again, since the Debate has been taking place in two parts, to say that the Government have come to share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones)? It seems to us that his proposal, in all the circumstances, is the right one.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I started out to consider this Amendment as one who had the greatest sympathy with what was in the minds of Members of another place when they passed it. If the Bill is to go back to another place I should like it to do so with the assurance—which I am entitled to give on behalf of myself, and perhaps some other of my hon. Friends—that if it were merely a question of saying that in the case of separation agreements made in default of proceedings in court there should be power to raise the payments and allow people benefits that other applicants are to get, that would, generally speaking, be a desirable thing to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington (Mr. J. Silver-

man) says there is a general power to limit agreements of this kind.

Mr. J. Silverman: I did not say that.

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend said that it did not make any alteration in the law.

Mr. Silverman: I said that an agreement to maintain does not oust the jurisdiction of the courts.

Mr. Hale: I agree; my hon. Friend is on strong ground there, because he is on the second point which I want to deal with, and which is the real evil of this Clause. The Clause does not make an amendment of the law because the jurisdiction of the courts is not ousted merely by the existence of a separation agreement, although a non-cohabitation clause is a matter which the courts have to consider. The real trouble with the Clause is this: it is so phrased as to say that the making of a payment by the husband under an agreement shall not of itself preclude the court from finding that the husband has wilfully failed to maintain his wife.
In my view, that is a principle of the greatest possible danger. Very often separation orders are made by agreement, without any question of there being a matrimonial offence at all. The people concerned hate the sight of one another, or perhaps the husband is in the House of Commons and never gets home until very late at night or not at all. Generally speaking, they come to the conclusion that they had better separate. That is one common class of case. Indeed, it is about the most frequent class of case where agreement is resorted to—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): By Members of the House of Commons?

Mr. Hale: No, I was merely quoting a class of case. The other class of case is where the wife is the guilty party. The husband says "Notwithstanding all this I will make you an allowance." If the Clause goes through as drawn, it means that the wife, who has been separated from her husband under an agreement, maybe for years, where there has been no marital consortium at all, can allege a new offence. The wife can say, "Notwithstanding the agreement, the sum I am receiving is not adequate for my maintenance, and, therefore, you have been


guilty of the new offence of wilfully neglecting to maintain me." The court would be debarred from considering the surrounding circumstances at the time the agreement was made. Although I was in favour of the general idea of the Amendment when it was made, and had intended at first to dissent from my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones), I have come to the conclusion that it is unacceptable and that the House ought to disagree with the Lords.

Mr. Marlowe: I agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). The Clause is an admirable one, but is undesirable. It is only for reasons of expediency that we think it is right to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment. If circumstances were otherwise, and it were possible to be sure of getting the Bill through with the Clause in it, it would be desirable to do so, but I understand that if we do not accept the course which is now suggested, there is a danger of the Bill being lost. I believe that in all parts of the House there is general agreement on the principle of the Bill. Merely as a matter of expediency we have to submit to the Clause not being put into the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 2. —(EXTENSION OF FINANCE ACT, 1944, s. 25.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 1, leave out Clause 2.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Asterley Jones: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the House if I refer to this Amendment and to the next Amendment, in line 36, at the end, to insert new Clause "B."
This is purely a drafting Amendment, which came about in this way: Clause 2, as it went from this House, extended the provisions of the Finance Act, 1944, dealing with small maintenance payments and deductions of Income Tax therefrom, to the new limits of £5 and 30/- for a wife and a child respectively. But owing to the fact that Clause 3 had not been added to the Bill when Clause 2 was added it did not extend the provisions of the Finance Act to the extension from 16 years to 21 years during which payments

can be made in respect of children of the marriage. The only change which has been made between the Clause as now proposed by another place and the Clause as it went from this House is that the words "sixteen years of age" are now to be deleted and the words "twenty-one years of age" added.

Mr. Monslow: I beg to second the Motion.

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 2, line 36, insert new Clause "B"—(EXTENSION OF FINANCE ACT, 1944, s. 25):
(1) In relation to payments pursuant to any order made in accordance with paragraph (c) of section five of the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, or section one of the Married Women (Maintenance) Act, 1920, section twenty-five of the Finance Act, 1944 (which requires that certain payments for the maintenance of a married woman or for the benefit, maintenance or education of a person under sixteen years of age which do not exceed two pounds a week or one pound a week respectively shall be made without deduction of tax) shall have effect as if in subsection (1) of that section for the words "sixteen years of age" there were substituted the words "twenty-one years of age," for the words "two pounds" there were substituted the words "five pounds" and for the words "one pound" there were substituted the words "thirty shillings.
(2) The references in the foregoing subsection to the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, and the Married Women (Maintenance) Act. 1920, shall be construed as references to those Acts as amended by this Act.

Clause 4. —(DUTIES OF COLLECTING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF ENFORCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE ORDERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 6, at end insert:
and unless it appears to him that it is unreasonable in the circumstances so to do.

Mr. Asterley Jones: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is the consequence of a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) during the Third Reading Debate. The Clause to which the Amendment refers, as originally drafted, put an obligation on the collecting officer of the court to sue for any arrears which might exist without giving him any option if the married woman so requested. My hon. Friend objected on the ground that it should not be made absolutely obligatory that


it should be left to his discretion, and the Amendment carries out that function.

Mr. Monslow: I beg to second the Motion.

Lords Amendment: In line 11, at end, insert:
(3) Nothing in the last foregoing subsection shall affect any right of a married woman to proceed in her own name for the recovery of sums payable under any such order as is mentioned in that subsection.

Mr. Asterley Jones: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is to make it clear that although the collecting officer may proceed, it does not deprive the married woman of the right to proceed if she so wishes.

Mr. Monslow: I beg to second the Motion.

Clause 7. —(APPEALS.)

Lords Amendment: In line 23, leave out Clause 7.

Mr. Asterley Jones: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I move this Motion with a great deal of sorrow. The Clause, which the other place now wishes us to delete, provided a method of appealing from the decision of courts of summary jurisdiction which the promoters of the Bill felt was necessary unless substantial injustice was to be caused. A court of summary jurisdiction has a very wide power to make orders extending over many years.
It appeared to the promoters of the Bill to be rather absurd that on a comparatively trivial criminal case a person, who is convicted before the magistrates, should be able to go to quarter sessions and have a complete re-hearing of the case with witnesses recalled, but that when a man is adjudged to pay a sum of £5 a week in favour of his wife for her life and 30s. a week for each child until he or she attains the age of 21 he should not have that right. It appears to us wrong that the decision of two or three magistrates, however honestly arrived at, should, on the facts of the case, be absolutely final in practice.
We propose to bring this form of appeal into line with that which prevails in criminal matters, whereby there is an alternative opinion by way of a case stated to the divisional court or by a rehearing at quarter sessions. There is a further point which led us to that conclusion. In the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, an order of a court of summary jurisdiction can be evidence of a matrimonial offence for proceedings for divorce brought at a later date. The circumstances in which this arises are—a man and a wife may be married perhaps only a year when the husband commits adultery. There is no possibility of divorce for three years, but in order to protect the wife and preserve the evidence, the wife's advisers suggest that she should either ask for a judicial separation in the High Court, or in the case of poor people go to the magistrates and ask for a separation or a maintenance order, or both on the grounds of adultery.
In due course, when the three years have clapsed it is possible to go to the High Court and ask for a divorce and produce the evidence of the magistrates. It is not conclusive evidence but evidence of the matrimonial offence complained of. While it is open to the High Court to hear evidence contradicting that order, it provides a strong prima facie evidence of the matrimonial offence which is the subject of the proceedings between the parties in the higher court.

Mr. Marlowe: I have not read the Debate in another place on this particular aspect of the subject. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us on what grounds the Lords rejected this Clause.

Mr. Asterley Jones: I was going to deal with that. I am just making the point that an order of a bench of magistrates may have far-reaching consequences, which ought to be very seriously studied, and which, in the view of the promoters of the Bill ought to be made the subject of appeal on the facts. When this particular Clause went to the other place, the Lord Chancellor was very sympathetic towards it, but he and a number of other noble Lords proposed that it should be rejected on the ground that a change in jurisdiction of such fundamental importance and one which aroused a certain amount of controversy


should not be made in a Private Member's Bill. That is the only ground upon which I ask the House to agree with the Lords in this Amendment. I personally think this Amendment is necessary.
The Lord Chancellor has given an undertaking in another place that he will watch the situation very carefully and keep it under review. That being so I feel that the main objects of this Bill are of such importance that we should not insist upon this particular Clause being retained in it, but should rely on the assurance that has been given that if there is a substantial injustice caused by the absence of the Clause on a question of fact the matter will be examined once more. I am sorry about this and I am most reluctant to take the step which I have proposed, but I feel that it is the only course which this House can follow.

Mr. Monslow: I beg to second the Motion.
I should like to express my regret that the Lords did not accept the Amendment for the reasons adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones). I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to recognise the progress already made with this Bill, and to express my warm thanks and appreciation to all Members on both sides of the House who have rendered invaluable service in order to bring this Bill to fruition.

Mr. Marlowe: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) for the explanation he has given of this matter. I agree with him that it is most unfortunate that this Clause has to go. It seems to me a very necessary reform of the law. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said just now—that as the amount involved is veing increased by this very Bill, the necessity of an appeal of this kind becomes all the more important. It seems to me rather unfortunate that once again we are put in this position that either we concur or risk the loss of the Bill, which none of us wants.
As I told the hon. Gentleman, I have not read the Debate on this matter in another place, and I am obliged to him for his clear explanation of what took place. I cannot see that because this raises rather a large issue that it should not, therefore, be dealt with in a Private

Member's Bill. It is not a logical sequence of events but the contrary in my view. Because the issues are important, I do not see why they should not be brought to the attention of the House by a Private Member's Bill. The Bill raises this important matter, but there is no guarantee that this admittedly desirable reform will be made by any other means.
I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that no undertaking was given by the Lord Chancellor that the Government will introduce a Bill to deal with the matter, merely a promise that the position will be watched to see if an injustice were done. I find that rather hard to follow. If there is not an appeal how is it known whether an injustice is done? It would seem far more preferable to allow the Clause to remain in the Bill and watch events thereafter. As it is, the Lord Chancellor is going to watch nothing. If this Clause were allowed to operate the matter could be given attention, and then the Government could introduce their own Bill to deal with any situation creating a difficulty. We are left once more in the unfortunate situation that the Lord Chancellor is holding a pistol at our heads. We must either accept this Amendment from another place or risk losing the Bill. Once again we have to concur in a proposition made in another place.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Hale: I agree with every word that the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) has said. I still do not know precisely why it should be that under one head we can have the Bill only by agreeing with the Lords and under another head we can have the Bill only by disagreeing with the Lords. I am told that there are such things as "usual channels" and methods of navigation, in which I have never personally found myself and which are, so far as I am concerned, completely uncharted. If my hon. Friend says that he is satisfied that that is the position, we must pay some regard to what he has said. I read with very great care what was said by my noble Friend on the Woolsack, and I must say that I read it as being a little more definite than my hon. Friend has put it to the House. Perhaps I paid less attention to his golden accents and more attention to his words than most people. I will not say that I derived from it a


specific undertaking, which no Lord Chancellor under the sun has ever given, but I derived something of an intimation of an admittedly great work of law reform that has to be done by embarking upon the whole consideration of appellate jurisdiction.
We know that that is fundamentally important. This Clause is nearly as important as any Clause in the Bill. I deplore its going. I hope that if it has to go in these circumstances, there will be a few moments spent now in emphasis of this matter in order to make the view of this House clear. In some speeches it has been frankly suggested, as it was put in the House on Third Reading, that for all practical purposes there is no right of appeal. In proceedings under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act there is a right of appeal to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, but they of course have to say: "The Bench saw the witnesses; this is a matter of fact—and we do not decide upon matters of fact—we can only interfere on matters of law, and there is not a lot of law in this matter." In 99 cases out of 100 where there is not a sense of real injustice, one has to advise the party not to appeal at all.
I hope that it may go out from this House that we have paid some attention to what was said and that we look forward to a real consideration of appellate jurisdiction. I wish there were a Law Officer of the Crown on the Government Front Bench who could give some clear indication to the House that that will be done. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Lord Advocate."] I am very sorry that I failed to notice among that assembly of notables the Lord Advocate. Whether he can deal with this strictly English Bill, I do not know. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will bear in mind what has been said. I am sure that he will have a very lively appreciation of the points and of their application.
In conclusion, I should like to refer to the fact that this is the first Private Member's Bill that has come back to this House in this form. I would remind hon. Members that it was the minatory threat of the fairy queen in the opera that she would

End the cherished right
We enjoy on Friday night.
The Bill is a symptom of the very useful work that can be done on either side of the House in matters of social reform. I hope that in the next Parliament we shall again have the cherished right that we once enjoyed on Wednesdays and Fridays, and shall see a great deal more of this kind of refrom.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The rejection of Clause 7 is definitely a retrograde step. The reason I say that is that there is a right of appeal, rather more extensive than we have just been told by the hon Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), from the courts of summary jurisdiction to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, on matters of fact. It is more extensive than on a case stated merely on legal points.

Mr. Hale: I never used the words "case stated." Some echo of other oratory still remains in the ears of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). I never referred to it. I said that, virtually speaking, there is no appeal on fact.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Actually I was indicating that there was, but we will leave that alone for the moment. The objection to rejecting this Clause lies in the fact that rejection does away with the opportunity that the Clause seeks to give to those who want to appeal to do it inexpensively and locally. Anyone who wants to appeal in these cases, now has to go to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division and is precluded from taking his appeal locally to the court of quarter sessions, the right to do which it is sought to confer upon him by Clause 7 of the Bill. That seems to be a strong objection to the Clause being deleted. As I say, a local appeal is very much cheaper and quicker. The costs are relatively small and the time involved in making the appeal is also short. At the present moment, appeals are constantly coming from courts of summary jurisdiction to recorders and county quarter sessions of a much more intricate kind than those with which we are concerned here.
These cases of maintenance orders usually turn upon such matters as whether the amount which has been ordered is too much or too little, whether in fact there has been


desertion, or neglect to maintain, or cruelty, or whatever the ground is on which the order is asked to be made. There is no abstruse or difficult point of law involved in cases of this kind. I think it is right to say that in almost every possible case of this kind the question is purely one of fact and of such domestic, simple facts that it is perfectly easy to decide. That, I suppose, is why these cases are submitted in the first place to a court of summary jurisdiction where lay magistrates can decide these very points. I cannot see why another place went out of its way to preclude the provisions of Clause 7 being incorporated in the Bill.
I must register my personal view against Clause 7 having to go, but having regard to the fact that we can keep the rest of the Bill only if Clause 7 goes, I would much sooner drop it than lose the other provisions. Before I resume my seat I should like to congratulate the promoters of the Bill, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones), whose experience and knowledge of this subject we all appreciate and to whom I have no doubt, in collaboration with his lay friends, the successful promotion of this useful Bill belongs.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The view was expressed by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) was that some useful purpose will be served if it is made clear that there is universal regret that the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) has, no doubt tactically and very wisely, found himself forced to give way on this point. I share the view of the hon. Member for Oldham that the only hope of further remedial action being taken, either by the powers that be or by the powers that will be, is that it is made extremely clear that this is regarded as a very important matter. An hon. Member opposite stressed the importance of providing appeal on fact in these cases, on the basis of the very large financial burden which now, under the Bill, may be imposed by one of these orders.
There is also another aspect of the matter which is at least equally important, and that is the extreme difficulty of determining the facts in these cases. Hon. Members who have had experience, as I had in the days when

I was in practice at the Bar, of dealing with matrimonial cases before justices know that they are not only as unpleasant a type of case for anyone taking part as can be imagined, but they are incredibly difficult in that there is hard sworn testimony which conflicts at almost every point with hard sworn testimony in the opposite direction, and of all judicial tasks that of magistrates in dealing with matrimonial cases is one of the most difficult there is. If that is so and if, as has been said, the amounts involved are very substantial, there is a strong case for the provision which this Clause sought to make for an appeal on fact to quarter sessions. I hope that, no matter what may be the result of the Lord Chancellor's observations on the matter, we shall continue to press for such an appeal.
There is one other reason why it seems to me to be a great pity that this Clause has now to be dropped. There is another Measure before the House at this moment which seeks to abolish certain of the courts of quarter sessions to which these appeals would have gone if the Clause had remained. I hope that when we again press this matter we shall not be told that these appeals cannot be provided because, owing to the reduced number of courts of quarter sessions, the work there will be overloaded. It would have been more appropriate if we could have put this provision in the Bill now, so that when in another capacity the House dealt with the other Measure, it would know precisely what amount of work there would be for the courts to deal with. The two Measures would have dovetailed. The decision of another place has prevented that.
The only other thing I would add is that the objection which, according to the hon. Member for Hitchin, was taken to the inclusion of the Clause in the Bill was apparently its importance. It is a remarkable proposition that because a matter is important it cannot be dealt with in a Private Member's Bill. If that attitude had been taken in 1937, the extremely important Measure put through this House by the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) could never have been passed into law, because that was plainly an important matter. It is certainly a new proposition that Private Members' Bills should be restricted only to matters of trivial importance.
I hope that even when this House does, as it will have to, give way on this point, we shall make it perfectly clear that we do not accept the principle that matters dealt with in Private Members' Bills originating in this House should not pass into law if they happen to deal with important subjects. That would be an extraordinary precedent, one highly derogatory to the whole procedure of Private Members' legislation and one against which many of us on both sides of the House would be ready emphatically to protest.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Silverman: Like other hon. Members, I am sorry that it is necessary to concur with the Lords in order to save the Bill. This Clause is an extremely important one. My recollection is that its main antagonist in the other place was the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and that his case was that the present appellate jurisdiction of that Division is properly exercised by people having vast and long experience of the law and of this type of case. Nobody questions that. It is true that those who sit in that court are competent people and that within the sphere of their jurisdiction they do their job very well indeed, but the complaint that we have to make is not with regard to the way they do their job but is simply that the vast majority of matrimonial cases in which there may be an injustice never have an opportunity of getting there.
In the first place, there is the expense. There is also the point that in the great majority of cases the husband will be compelled to bear the cost irrespective of the result. There is also the point that while it is true that, theoretically, their jurisdiction extends beyond points of law, in substance it does not go very much further than deciding points of law, because if the court can say that the magistrates' court could possibly have arrived at the decision at which they did on the evidence which is on the record, the appeal is inevitably dismissed, which means that in the great majority of cases the person who believes that his case has been properly decided before the magistrates does not bother to appeal at all and is advised, and quite correctly advised, "Do not waste your time and money in appealing

because the decision against you is inevitable."
Obviously, decisions such as these decide the status of a man or woman for life and deal with vast sums of money, and it is clear that there ought to be adequate appellant jurisdiction and that it should not merely be confined to a small minority of cases where on the record the decision is unmistakably wrong. Appeal to Quarter Sessions, the procedure which applies to practically every other case of appeal from courts of summary jurisdiction, should also be applied to these cases.
Unfortunately, to save the Bill we have to concur with the Lords, but I hope the Government will note the unanimity of hon. Members about the Clause. On it we have what might be called a "lawyers' field day." I do not think we ought to apologise for that because between us we bring into this Chamber a good deal of specialised experience about these problems and the lawyers agree. I hope that the Government will find it possible to introduce legislation covering this point. Perhaps somewhere in the void of the coming Session they will be able to find room for it. Certainly it is badly needed, and I hope the Government will be able to deal with it on some future occasion.

Mr. Younger: I do not think it would be at all useful if at this stage I were to attempt to enter into a discussion on the merits of the Clause. I will, however, say that I shall see to it that what has been said is brought to the notice of my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. I think that all hon. Members have appreciated that, whatever may be their views on the merits, the advice given to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones), that for tactical reasons it would be advisable to agree with the Lords in this Amendment, is sound advice.
It is probably within the recollection of the House that at an earlier stage of the Bill, speaking for the Government, I supported the Clause which it is now proposed to remove from the Bill. Since that time there has been much discussion. Very considerable opposition was expressed in the other place. It is true that the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division was among those


who, if one can so desribe it, "led the opposition." It is also fair to say that misgivings have been expressed, as it were, on the other side, from the courts of quarter session to which it is sought to give the additional jurisdiction. There has been a certain apprehension that they might find the burden of this new work a very considerable one which it would be difficult to bear. I am not seeking to go into the merits of the matter, but I would emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend, that there was considerable opposition in another place and that if we wish to see, as we all do, this Bill on the Statute Book, it would be advisable to agree with the Lords.

Mr. Marlowe: May I put a point to the hon. Gentleman? In view of the fact that one of the difficulties that arises is the question of overloading courts of quarter sessions, will he when making representations about this matter point out that it seems most ill-advised that the Government should choose this very moment to cut down the number of courts of quarter session.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Eric Fletcher, Dr. Haden Guest, Mr. Asterley Jones, Mr. Anthony Marlowe, and Mr. Monslow: Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Monslow.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to: to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — ADOPTION OF CHILDREN BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 3. —(CONSENT TO ADOPTION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 21, leave out from beginning to "on" in line 28, and insert:
Subject to the following provisions of this section, any consent required by this section for the making of an adoption order may be given either before or after an application has been made for the order; but the consent of the mother of the infant shall be of no effect for the purposes of this section if given earlier than six weeks after the birth of the infant.

(3) Any consent given for the purposes of an application for an adoption order may be given (subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified therein with respect to the religious persuasion in which the infant is to be brought up) in respect of any order which may be made in pursuance of the application, and shall be valid notwithstanding that the identity of the applicant is not specified in the consent or known to the consenting party; and where a consent so given by any person is subsequently withdrawn

Mr. Basil Nield: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think it would be convenient to the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to take this together with the next two Amendments to line 30 and 31, to which we propose to disagree.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to second the Motion.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): Is this the appropriate moment for me to move the Amendment on the Order Paper in substitution for the proposed Lords Amendments, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): We must agree or disagree with the Amendments which another place has sent to us. After that the hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity.

Mr. Younger: This is in substitution.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I explain what I think is the position? The hon. Gentleman can adduce his argument, then the House will come to a conclusion on the Lords Amendment; then when all the Lords Amendments have been disposed of, the hon. Gentleman can formally move his own.

Mr. Younger: If I understand your Ruling correctly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I can now speak in argument to my Amendment in lieu of the Lords Amendment, and I shall move it subsequently if the House agrees to disagree with the Lords in their Amendment.
This is a rather important matter. Clause 3 deals with consent to adoption. Consent has been the most difficult and contentious aspect of this Bill and I believe it is now the only point on which we shall find it necessary to have a long discussion. This Amendment which I


shall move is the result of much consultation and prolonged effort in order to reconcile opposed views on this matter. Since there has been a good deal of misunderstanding of the law in relation to consent to adoption, I hope the House will bear with me while I go into the position under the existing law.
Under the 1926 Act it is provided that an adoption order shall not be made without the consent of certain persons. It is important to understand that the consent referred to there is a state of mind. It is the state of mind of the persons who are listed in the Act and who are concerned with the order. That has to be distinguished from the evidence of consent, which may take the form of a signed document that may have been signed at some previous time. One wants to keep clearly in mind the difference between evidence of consent, which may take many forms, and consent itself, which is what the courts have to be satisfied about before they make an order.
Moreover, it must be consent at the time when the order is to be made. That is the finding of the Court of Appeal under the 1926 Act, but in Clause 3 of the present Bill we have adopted the same words as were in the 1926 Act, namely—
An adoption order shall not be made except with the consent of every person….
Those are the same words upon which the Court pronounced, and therefore it will still be the case if this Bill becomes law, that it will be necessary for the consent to be a consent at the time of the order.
Thirdly, under the 1926 Act—I think Section 3—it is necessary that the court must be satisfied that consent has been given to the order for which an application is made; that is to say, it cannot be simply a general consent to adoption but must be a consent to a specific adoption order.
Those things are all the case under the present law and two types of difficulty have arisen which it has been sought in the course of this Bill to meet. First, every one with experience of adoption is agreed that it is often desirable to conceal from a natural parent the identity of the people who are proposing to adopt the child. It is better that, when the order has been made, contact with the former family should be completely broken and

that the child should become in every respect the child of the new family. Throughout these Debates it has been said frequently by persons of varying opinions on other matters that it is in some cases desirable that it should be possible for the identity of the prospective adopters not to be known to the parents. On the other hand, one must admit that a mother who is contemplating allowing her child to be adopted—indeed any parent—is entitled to some knowledge of the type of home to which he or she is handing over the child. One would not suggest that she should accept, almost in vacuo, adoption by some person unnamed and undescribed.
The second difficulty under the existing law is that there certainly have been a number of cases—it would be difficult to say how many—where parents, having first signified their willingness that a child should be adopted, and having allowed the prospective adopters actually to take the custody of the child, and having left the child there perhaps for some time, have changed their minds and have taken the child back. There is no denying that cases of that kind cause considerable hardship to those who have already taken the child into their care and, in many cases, have begun to count on it as a member of the family. It may also have ill results for the child, which has already been transferred from one home to another since, if it transferred back that is another change which may be made just when it was settling down.
On the other hand, again there is a reverse side to the problem, that one must safeguard carefully the right of natural parents—especially the mother of an illegitimate child which is so often the case one has to consider—to have full time for thought and, if necessary, an opportunity to reconsider her decision before she is finally deprived of all her rights in respect of the child.
Clause 3 of this Bill, as it left this House and went to another place, sought to deal with the first point, that is the point of concealing the identity, by introducing a form of general consent—consent generally for adoption and not consent given in respect of a specific application—and that was something new which had not been known to the previous law. By going on to provide that if such a consent was subsequently withdrawn only


on the ground that the person whose consent was asked did not know the identity of the proposed adopter, the court would be empowered to deem that consent to be unreasonably withheld and, therefore, under the terms of Clause 3 (c) of the Bill, would be able to dispense with it and to make the adoption order despite the lack of consent. That was how the Clause sought to deal with that problem as the Bill left the Commons.
6.30 p.m.
The second point—the difficulty of the parent who changes his or her mind—was not dealt with in any substantial way at all except in so far as the provision to which I have just referred—where a consent could be deemed to be unreasonably withheld if it was withheld only on the ground that the identity was not known—might be said to give a very limited protection to prospective adopters in some classes of case.
A number of hon. Members, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), protested at various stages, including Third Reading, that there should be some greater protection for persons who intend to adopt and who already have the child in their care. Broadly speaking, the sort of thing which my hon. Friend had in mind was that at some stage before the final order came to be made, it would be advantageous, that the evidence of consent given by a natural parent should become final or that it should be impossible to go back on such consent once it had been given.
When this matter went to another place, the proposition for a general consent to adoption by an unnamed person and not in respect of any particular application was rejected by the Lords principally on the ground that it was not right to encourage natural parents of a child so to neglect their responsibility as simply to hand over a child to anybody who might care to adopt it. Their Lordships agreed, however, that the actual identity need not be disclosed in all cases, and they produced, in the Amendment which is now before the House, a formula which was intended to go some way towards meeting this difficulty.
Secondly, their Lordships rejected entirely—this point was put specifically to them in the course of their Debates—any

proposal that a consent to adoption by a natural parent should become irrevocable at some time before the hearing for the final order. After all, until that time arrives all other matters are still in flux. It is still possible, for the prospective adopters to say that they no longer want the child and to give it back. It is still open to the court to say that the prospective adopters are unsuitable. Therefore, it was argued in another place that it was not acceptable that the only person who should have, so to speak, the door closed against her, while it was still open to all others, should be the natural mother or natural parent.
Their Lordships did, however, attempt to introduce a safeguard against the frivolous taking of a consent from a mother by providing that her consent should not be taken until six weeks had elapsed after the birth of the child. I am not using the strict legal language, which hon. Members may check from the paper, but am relating the effect of the Amendment. Their Lordships also made certain provision for the taking of evidence of consent from a mother in a particular written form.
Since those things were done in the summer very many representations have been made about the proper way to deal with this extremely difficult problem. Although the views which have been strongly expressed are not, perhaps, irreconcilable, they have nevertheless proved exceedingly hard to reconcile. The main object of the present proposals which I am anxious to suggest to the House, is to find a reasonable solution which, on the one hand, will give some safeguard against what one might call an irresponsible snatch-back of the child who is already placed with prospective adopters, while, on the other hand, keeping intact the essential rights of a natural parent. In addition, we have taken the opportunity to clear up certain ambiguities of drafting, particularly the point I have mentioned regarding consent—the difference between the consent itself and evidence of consent. We have also altered the provision about concealing the identity of the prospective adopter.
We appreciate that detailed procedure for protecting the identity of a prospective adopter will have to be laid down beyond what is proposed in the Amendment. It will have to be laid down in


rules, and it may in some cases be quite a difficult matter for a court which is dealing with the application, which has to take into account the interests of all parties, to ensure that the parties do not meet and that they do not get to know each other's identity. That, however, is a matter for which, we think, we can provide satisfactorily in rules in addition to the words used in subsection (2) of the Amendment.
The main point of the Amendment—the new subsection (4)—deals with the question, to which I have already referred, of the parent who wishes to change his or her mind. The practical point to be dealt with is not any question of the mother's consent, because that only arises when the hearing of the application for the adoption order takes place; consent in the technical sense, as used in the law of adoption, is only relevant when the court has to decide on the hearing of an application whether or not the necessary persons do consent to the making of the order. What we have to provide against is what I have called the "irresponsible snatch-back" in the period before the application for the order is heard—that is to say, when the child is already in the custody of the prospective adopters but when the time for the order has not arrived because, most likely, the probationary period of three months, which is laid down in another part of the Bill, has not come to an end. In the new subsection (4) we have sought to meet that case while still preserving the essential rights of a natural parent.
I should like to quote the new subsection (4):
While an application for an adoption order in respect of an infant is pending in any court"—
that means, once an application for an adoption order has been lodged in any court. Under the Bill, if it is passed, the lodging of an application will be possible quite early—indeed, at the very beginning of the probationary period; whereas, at any rate in the case of adoption societies, it has not hitherto been possible under existing law even to apply until the probationary period had expired. Therefore, the expression
While an application … is pending in any court.
means the period after the prospective
adopters have made their application, and not necessarily after the end of the probationary period. The subsection continues:
any parent or guardian of the infant who has signified his consent to the making of an adoption order in pursuance of the application "—
that, of course, rules out the type of general consent to which their Lordships objected—
shall not be entitled, except with the leave of the court, to remove the infant from the care and possession of the applicant; and in considering whether to grant or refuse such leave the court shall have regard to the welfare of the infant.
As regards that final phrase, perhaps I might point out that already, under the 1926 Act, a court cannot make an adoption order unless it is satisfied that it will be in the interests of the welfare of the infant to do so. This explains the origin of the phrase.
Let me briefly examine the proposition which I have read out from the two points of view which have been plainly expressed in the course of our Debates. First, from the point of view of the natural parent, and in particular the natural mother, what is the effect of this Bill as it is proposed to amend it going to be? There are safeguards in the Bill which did not previously exist against her being influenced prematurely into giving a rapid or ill-considered consent. There is the period of six weeks and the provision for the manner in which her written consent has to be submitted to be considered as evidence. If she can be traced she must have notice of the filing of an application of adoption and, therefore, it cannot happen without her knowing. New rules will be added which will ensure that she will know exactly how it is she is to make application to the court under subsection (4), if this Amendment is passed.
If she goes to the court for leave to get the child back, it is almost inconceivable that she should not be allowed to have it back, if she satisfies the court that she has genuinely changed her mind and now intends to look after and care for the child. Even if the court refuses to let her have the child back, that still does not affect her right to make a protest, or, when the case comes for final hearing to refuse consent to the adoption order because, if this subsection is accepted, it


will still be the case, as under the present law, that what the court have to be satisfied of is the consenting state of mind of the person at the time of the order. All that the refusal of the court would mean would be that she could not take the child back in the meantime and when the case came for final hearing she would still have her opportunity.
It may be necessary to make further provision in the rules—at any rate in the juvenile court rules—to ensure that if an application is not followed up expeditiously and there is undue delay, proceedings will be terminated. This is already partly covered in the county court, but not so well covered in the juvenile court rules. But, I would point out, the natural parent has only to apply to the court under subsection (4) to bring up the whole matter and there is no question of her having to wait an indefinite period.

Mr. Benn Levy: Will my hon. Friend amplify that a little more? It is an important point and I am not sure that I am seized of it. On whom rests the responsibility of expediting the matter?

Mr. Younger: The position under the existing rules differs slightly in the case of the county court. In the juvenile court, once an application has been made and guardian ad litem appointed, the court fixes the date. The prospective adopters would be concerned to expedite the hearing, but one may conceive cases in which they might wish to leave the application lying. As far as the rights of the natural parent are concerned, they would be safeguarded because the whole matter could be brought to the attention of the court under the new procedure proposed by subsection (4) and it is open to a natural parent to apply to the court to get the child back. The whole matter would automatically come before the court and, in those circumstances, we must rely on the discretion of the court to handle a matter in a reasonable manner.
Having said what I think are the advantages to the natural mother, or the natural parent, I turn to the point of view of the prospective adopter. I think it a great advantage, once consent to an application has been signified by a natural parent, that the adopters can file their application immediately at the beginning

of the probationary period. That should greatly reduce the delays that were spoken of in earlier Debates, which sometimes occur after the application has been lodged. After the application is lodged and a guardian ad litem appointed, there seems little reason why, in the normal course, the court should not grant the order at its first sitting, or at an early sitting after the probationary period. The new subsection should also give protection against frivolous applications to take the child out of the care of the prospective adopters. The mere fact that the natural parent has to go to a court would be a deterrent to someone who was wanting the child back for purposes of blackmail with no intention of making a home for the child.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I think this is a very great improvement and I have only one comment to make on it. The type of applicant who could be relied upon not to behave very well is probably the original parent, and that is the person who would be asked to give a general consent under this Clause.

Mr. Younger: Mr. Youngerindicated dissent.

Mr. Hale: But surely—

Mr. Younger: I do not know whether we are at cross purposes, but I do not think that general consent arises under the proposal which I am putting forward. It arises under Clause 3 as the Clause went to the Lords, but this has to be a consent to a particular application—an order made in pursuance of a particular application.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, but where consent is withdrawn,
on the ground only that he does not know the identity of the applicant, his consent shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be unreasonably withheld.
I apologise for the use of the words "general consent," which I got from the Lords Amendment; but a blank consent, where the person wants the child adopted without regard to the identity of the applicant, quite obviously is that of a person whose child has to be adopted for some reason or other and, usually, it is a person in difficulty, or distress, against whom we want to protect the child It seems that in those circumstances the


right to withdraw appears to be given but is not protected under subsection (4). So far as I can see, this Clause says that the person whose child is to be adopted can negative the whole procedure up to the time of the adoption order and can say, "I did not know it was going to be Mr Jones, and therefore I withdraw my consent." Subsection (4) then gives no protection.

Mr. Younger: I do not quite follow my hon. Friend. As regards the consent, whether it is general or particular, it is intended that the only type of consent relevant at all to our discussion shall be a consent given to the making of an order in pursuance of an application, either by a person named, whose identity is fully known, or by a person sufficiently described to satisfy the natural parent that a proper home is to be provided, but not described in such a way as to enable a natural parent to follow the child to that home. That is the whole point of the change made between the discussions in another place and the proposals we are now considering. I do not think it is necessarily the case that a person who would consent to the adoption of the child by a person who is described but not actually named would be an undesirable person at all.

Mr. Hale: No, I do not say "necessarily."

Mr. Younger: I should think it would be quite proper to accept a person who is sufficiently described to give the impression of a person who would make a good home, but not to identify that person. That is the purpose of the proposal. I am not quite clear what exactly was the danger my hon. Friend apprehended. I gather that he was afraid that a not very stable or responsible type would be able to use subsection (4) and, if the court in its discretion, having regard to the welfare of the infant, decided that person should have the child, then it is perfectly true that the adoption proceedings would come to an end.

Mr. Hale: I want to clear the matter up. It may be that I am under a misunderstanding. Subsection (2) says:
… where consent so given by any person is subsequently withdrawn on the ground only that he does not know the identity of the applicant, his consent shall be deemed for the

purposes of this section to be unreasonably withheld.
Those words presumably mean something and they say that if consent is withdrawn,
on the ground only that he does not know the identity.
Supposing it is withdrawn not only because he does not know the identity, but for something else. Then presumably if these words mean anything the court has not the power to withhold the consent. In other words, as I read it, subsection (4) does not give the sort of protection which it was thought it gave.

Mr. Younger: I do not know what protection my hon. Friend thought it gave. It gives protection against the thing which is stated—if consent has been given and is then withdrawn only on the ground that identity is withheld, it can be deemed to be unreasonably withheld. Apart from that the only protection which is given is contained in Clause 3 (1), which is not affected by this Amendment, and which sets out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) the circumstances in which the court may dispense with consent on the grounds inter alia that consent is unreasonably withheld. These safeguards are not complete, and there must be an element of discretion. The range of circumstances in which the court may take such consents to 'be unreasonably withheld, and consequently the protection given under Clause 3 (1), must in the nature of things be relatively limited.
I am sorry to have taken up so much of the time of the House, but this is a difficult problem on which a wide range of views has been expressed, and I wished to cover the ground. The proposals which I am putting before the House probably do not give any of the contestants, if I may so describe them, a 100 per cent. of what they want but I suggest that they are a reasonable compromise. They strike a practical balance between interests which inevitably conflict to some extent.
I would point out that we have reached a very late stage in the progress of this important Private Member's Bill. We are all anxious that the Bill should become law and it is clear that there can be no possibility of any further modifications passing backwards and forwards between the two Houses if this Bill is not to be lost. It is some time since these Amendments were put before us by the House


of Lords. We have had three or four months of very full consultation in which the hon. Members who have been concerned with this Bill in this House and also those who have been concerned in another place have taken part. I am entitled to say to the House that I have some reason to think that the present proposals come as near to satisfying all those who have an interest in the matter as we are likely to get, and that they have a better chance than any other proposals I have seen of commanding general agreement. I ask all Members who are anxious to see the Bill on the Statute Book, and by that I mean all Members, to accept these Amendments.

Further Lords Amendments disagreed to:

In line 30, leave out "the last foregoing section" and insert "this section."

In line 31, at end, insert:
(4) Provision shall be made by rules under section eight of the principal Act for securing that any consent given by the mother of the infant for the purposes of this section otherwise than before the court which makes an adoption order shall be given in writing, in such form as may be prescribed by the rules, and signed, upon the date upon which it purports to be given, in the presence of a justice of the peace.

Mr. Nield: I beg to move, in lieu of the Lords Amendments disagreed to, in page 2, line 21, to leave out subsection (2), and to insert:
(2) The consent of any person to the making of an adoption order in pursuance of an application may be given (either unconditionally or subject to conditions with respect to the religious persuasion in which the infant is to be brought up) without knowing the identity of the applicant for the order; and where consent so given by any person is subsequently withdrawn on the ground only that he does not know the identity of the applicant, his consent shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be unreasonably withheld.
(3) Where any person whose consent to the making of an adoption order is required by this section does not attend in the proceedings for the purpose of giving it, a document signifying his consent to the making of such an order shall, if the person in whose favour the order is to be made is named or otherwise described in the document, be admissible as evidence of that consent, whether the document is executed before or after the commencement of the proceedings; and where any such document is attested by a justice of the peace (or, if executed outside the United Kingdom, by a person of any such class as

may be prescribed by rules made under the principal Act), the document shall be admissible as aforesaid without further proof of the signature of the person by whom it is executed:
Provided that a document signifying the consent of the mother of an infant shall not be admissible as aforesaid unless—

(a) the infant is at least six weeks old on the date of the execution of the document; and
(b) the document is attested on that date by a justice of the peace or, as the case may be, by a person of a class prescribed as aforesaid.

(4) While an application for an adoption! order in respect of an infant is pending in any court, any parent or guardian of the infant who has signified his consent to the making of an adoption order in pursuance of the application shall not be entitled, except with the leave of the court, to remove the infant from the care and possession of the applicant; and in considering whether to grant or refuse such leave the court shall have regard to the welfare of the infant.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section a document purporting to be attested as mentioned in that subsection shall be deemed to be so attested, and to be executed and attested on the date and at the place specified therein, unless the contrary is proved.
I move this Amendment formally, but I might perhaps be allowed to say one or two things as I was originally responsible for the Measure. The House may recall that there was this one outstanding point which has caused a measure of difficulty, and after the Bill left this House there were discussions between interested people in order to achieve some sort of compromise. I am anxious to say that I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for the explanation which he has given, and for the great help of his Department in arriving at this proposal. I would ask the House to accept the Amendment and I lay particular emphasis on the concluding passage of the Under-Secretary's observations to the effect that we are now reaching a stage where any further Amendment is likely to lead to the loss of the Measure. I feel that in all the circumstances we have, in trying to bring together the conflicting views, reached the most reasonable state of things that can be achieved. I ask the House to support this Amendment.

Mr. John Foster: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Parker: I should like to give general support to this compromise. We have had many discussions


on this point and I think that on the whole the Amendment represents a reasonable compromise between the opposing views. I should like to raise one point. During the discussion on this proposal evidence has come forward of a good many undesirable types of case—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member is proposing to move his Amendment to the proposed Amendment, he cannot speak now because he would be speaking on the main Question.

Mr. Parker: I will merely say that I give general support to the Amendment.

Mr. Hale: I should like to make an observation as I intervened during the speech of the Under-Secretary, in which he gave a most lucid explanation of this new provision, in respect of 99 per cent. of which I expressed approval. What my hon. Friend said about Clause 3 removed a large part of the apprehension I had in mind. He was right and I was wrong. There is sufficient protection in the Bill outside this Clause to deal with the point I have in mind, protection which I had overlooked. I can accordingly give my complete blessing to, this new provision, which appears to me admirably to meet the point which we are discussing.

Mr. Levy: rose—

Mr. Speaker: What I said to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) will apply to the hon. Member. He cannot speak now if he wishes to speak on a subsequent Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Levy: I would rather speak on this Amendment.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 11, after "described," to insert "without disclosing his identity."

Mr. Levy: On a point of Order. Was I not entitled, Mr. Speaker, to speak on the Amendment which we have just been discussing?

Mr. Speaker: I presume that the hon. Member will second the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). He cannot speak twice because in doing so he would also be speaking on the main Question.

Mr. Levy: I understood that, but perhaps I did not make myself clear. I intended to convey that I would much prefer to speak on the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) than on my own Amendment. I wished very badly to speak on that Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: We can surmount that difficulty. We have first to dispose of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) which I have called. Then we shall return to the main Question, and if the hon. Member wishes to speak on the main Question he will have an opportunity to do so before I call the next Amendment.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Hastings: What I wish to do is to make assurance doubly sure that a document signed by the natural parent of the child can be considered as evidence of consent by a court if the person by whom the child is to be adopted is, "named or otherwise described" without disclosing his identity. I feel that it is of the greatest possible importance to adopters that, where they so desire, their names should not be disclosed to the natural parent of the child. I am speaking from knowledge, because people have expressed this view to me on more than one occasion. People who have adopted a child are in constant terror that the natural parent will turn up. I know perfectly well that when the legal process is complete the natural parent cannot possibly get the child back from them, except by permission of the Lord Chancellor, or some very complicated process.
But the natural parent can be a very great trouble to the adopter. The natural parent can, and in certain circumstances has, levied blackmail, or tried to get to know the adopted child, or has tried to undermine the affection of the adopted child towards his adopted parents, and a great deal of difficulty has been caused. That is more likely to occur in the case of children who are adopted at a relatively late age. In my ignorance I originally supposed that children were usually


adopted at a very young age, but since I have had a good deal to do with adoption as chairman of that section of the Children's Committee of the London County Council dealing with adoption, I have discovered that many people adopt children at later ages, up to 12 years.
I have also discovered that when children are 'boarded out with foster parents the foster parents get very attached to the children. They fear that the children will be taken away from them, and they are quite ready to adopt these children, so that adoptions take place at all ages. These people feel there is a danger of the affection of the child being diverted from them. The only way to avoid that is for the natural parent not to know the name of the adopter. I want to be quite sure that in the words, "named or otherwise described"—the "otherwise described" part of it will, if the courts feel it necessary, make it impossible for the natural parent to find out the name of the adopter. I wish to be sure that "otherwise described" can be interpreted in that way. For example, if an hon. Member of this House were described not by his name but as, "the hon. Member for so-and-so" it would be very easy for the natural parent to find out his name. I am very anxious to make sure that that can be made quite impossible if the courts so desire.

Mr. Thurtle: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that what he wishes to avoid is that if a natural mother should have the wicked impulse to establish contact with her child again, the law must take great care to see that she is not able to gratify that impulse?

Mr. Hastings: Yes, Sir, that is my desire.

Mr. Thurtle: Then I do not think much of it.

Mr. Skinnard: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Younger: I think I can set the mind of my hon. Friend at rest about the meaning—and certainly I can about the intention—of what is already in the Bill. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) will forgive me if I tell him I consider he is mistaken about what is the purpose

of the proposal we are discussing. Most people concerned with this subject agree that once the adoption order is through, once the child has become a member of the new family and has ceased to be a member of the old family, it is frequently extremely advantageous that the severence should be final; that there should be no contact between the old family which has agreed to part with the child and the new family which has now become—we hope in every respect—the family of the child.
Obviously that cannot be achieved if in the proceedings of the court it inevitably becomes clear to the natural parent who is the prospective adopter, and if, consequently, it is always possible for the former family to get into touch with the new family. That is what we seek to avoid. I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) that the text I have put before the House will achieve that. In the new subsection (2) it is laid down—I am paraphrasing—that the consent of any person may be given without knowing the identity of the applicant for the order. I think that is quite clear. It leaves it open for a consent to be given without the identity being revealed.
In the next subsection—subsection (3)—which is the one my hon. Friend seeks to amend, there is a distinction drawn between a person in whose favour the order is made being named or otherwise described. In the light of the previous subsection it is quite clear that the purpose of those words, "or otherwise described "is to implement what was said in the previous subsection, namely, that consent could be given without knowing the identity. Those two phrases taken together make that unambiguous. The actual concealing of the identity will present a difficulty much more practical than statutory.
We contemplate in the new rules that it will be necessary to lay down with great care the procedure to be followed if throughout these proceedings the parties are to be kept apart sufficiently to prevent the one from knowing the other. As hon. Members probably know, there are already in the rules certain provisions enabling the court to see the different parties at different times and not always together. There are great practical difficulties involved, but we


intend to do everything which can be done in the rules. I hope that that assurance will be sufficient for my hon. Friend, and that he will not press this Amendment which, in any event, is not very suitable, for technical and drafting reasons.

Mr. Hastings: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Parker: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 33, at the end, to add:
(6) Where an initial consent is revoked the natural mother shall compensate the intended adopters for any reasonable expenditure that they shall have incurred on behalf of the child. In case of disagreement the sum entailed shall be decided by the courts having regard to the means of the natural mother.
I put down this proposal in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) in order to draw attention to a particular grievance which we have found exists. There are quite a number of cases, rather more than one would have thought, in which a mother definitely places out her child for a period with the idea of getting the child kept by someone; and with the idea from the very beginning that she will get her child back at a later date. She puts the child out for her own convenience without any thought for the would-be adopting mother or the welfare of the child, and at the cost of the would-be adopters. In the case of such people I think it very desirable—knowing there are a certain number of such cases, let us hope not many—that the natural mother should have to compensate financially the adopting mother. That would be some check on this practice. Of course, it would not meet the problem of the feelings of the adopting mother who would suffer from having had the child torn away from her after she had become fond of it. It is desirable that there should be some check on the natural mother who wishes to park out a child and get it back later. It was in order to draw attention to this type of case that we put down this Amendment.

Mr. Haworth: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Dr. Santo Jeger (St. Pancras, South-East): We have been told by those who are piloting this Bill through the House that a very delicate balance has been arrived at between the interests of the various parties concerned. It is true that we have arrived at a satisfactory compromise, but I consider that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) would upset it altogether. His suggestion would be impracticable to administer because the sort of expenditure which adopting parents are likely to incur is difficult to define and difficult to recover. They might decorate a room, convert a room into a nursery and buy a pram. All these are items of capital expenditure which could easily be used in the case of a second adoption if the first fell through.
The sort of expenditure which could not be recovered would be the cost of a foster mother, which is about two guineas a week. Any mother who puts her child out to be kept by adopting parents for a considerable period would not come under this Bill at all. The total period of trial adoption before the final order is to be made is no more than three months. Therefore, the total amount of expenditure on a foster mother would be something like £25.
Usually the sort of girl who becomes an unmarried mother and gets herself into this kind of position is penniless. It is not possible for her to raise a very large sum of money. She may have 26s. a week National Health Insurance, but she cannot pay the sort of debt which we have been talking about out of that. Therefore, the whole object of the proposal must be a deterrent one, to deter her from having any sort of change of mind. An unmarried mother—and it is the unmarried mothers who are mainly concerned in this matter—has undergone a very great upheaval in her life. It is the sort of upheaval which gives time for second thoughts. If there is any prospect of her developing the right kind of feeling of maternal responsibility, we ought to encourage that development and not destroy it.
The girl who gives her preliminary consent may have her second thoughts because of a complete change of circumstances. She may be able to re-arrange her life. She may possibly find a job


which will enable her to have and to support her baby, or she may have an opportunity of getting married and providing a home for her child. If, on the other hand, she has always before her a threat of unknown costs which are going to act as a punishment and which are likely to prevent her from reviving her natural maternal feelings, even though they may be delayed, it appears to me to be the sort of procedure which we ought not to encourage.
7.15 p.m.
The whole idea is inequitable when one compares the relative position of the adopters and of the natural mothers. This Bill makes no difference to the position that right up to the last day of the three months' trial adoption period the child can be returned to its natural mother by the adopting parents. The mother may be in a job which makes it impossible for her to keep her baby with her. For example, she may be in domestic service, or she may be training to be a hospital nurse, or she may have gone back to her parents' home where her neighbours and friends do not know what has happened. It is quite possible to find a taxi driving up to her home, or wherever she may be working, and to get a new and revised version of the baby being left on the doorstep.
On the other hand, if the natural mother wants her child back she must get a court order before she can recover the baby, but it is possible for the adopting parents to return the baby at any time within this three months' period for all sorts of insignificant reasons. I heard of a case recently where a fair-haired child suddenly developed a tinge of red. Forthwith, the adopting parents took a violent dislike to the child and returned it without notice very near to the end of the period of three months. There was a disturbance of the balance to which reference has been made.
It is no use saying that it is always possible for a natural mother to take her child back to the adoption society because there are more potential adopters than there are babies to be adopted. Supply and demand have a habit of changing, and we all know that a sellers' market does not always remain a sellers' market. Meanwhile the damage is done; and I hope therefore that the House will

decline to accept this Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Younger: Although I am prepared to agree that there may be cases, I should have thought that there were relatively few of the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr Parker) referred where a natural parent takes a mean advantage of prospective adopters seeks to have a child looked after at their expense for some months and then takes the child back. I should have thought that instances of that kind were somewhat rare, and that in so far as they do occur it is not likely that the type of parent who would be guilty of that conduct would be able to pay the sort of compensation which is envisaged in the Amendment I suggest that it would be in just those cases that this provision would be ineffective However, the main point, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras (Dr. Jeger), is that this is a new proposal. It is perhaps a rather curious fact that among the very wide range of topics we have discussed, at no stage of the Bill, either here or in another place, has this point been mentioned.
I think that we should be raising major issues if we were to introduce the question of compensation for expenditure and if we were to add that matter to the many factors which may influence the state of mind of a natural parent in approaching the court for leave to get her child back. That would be a strange departure, and on that ground alone I hope that my hon. Friend will not seek to press his Amendment. I could produce a number of arguments against the Amendment, and I feel no confidence that if it were approved it would have very much chance of being accepted in another place. As has already been pointed out, that would run a very serious risk of losing the Bill, and I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will not press it.

Mr. Parker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. Bern Levy: I apologise if I have been over-pertinacious in hurdling over the rules of Order, but I do want for a few moments to detain the House


on the subject of these Amendments. What we are faced with is, as my hon. Friend said, no better than a compromise, carrying in the opinion of many of us very great defects; and these defects ought to be stated clearly for the record.
During the many stages of this Bill, I have several times felicitated the hon. Gentleman who promoted it because I believe it to be a very good Bill, and, if I have been a trouble to him, that is because I have been trying to make it a better in one very important respect That is in connection with the question of consent to which the Lords Amendment is related and to the practice which my hon. Friend has pungently described as the system of snatch-back.
What my hon. Friend has done in moving his own corrective Amendment is a very considerable attempt to meet us, and I appreciate it. I think he has reduced quite substantially some of the disadvantages that were inherent in the Lords Amendment as they originally came before this House, though I cannot pretend that he has produced what could be described as the perfect solution, nor could he in the circumstances.
The Lord Chancellor once said on this matter that once real consent had been given it was desirable that that consent should be final. That is a basic principle, and I regret very much that both Houses could not have united to put that principle into practice. Unfortunately, the fact must be faced that in these fields of adoption work and in the related fields, there are conflicting factions. There are those who believe, as I think most of us in this House believe, that the wisest and most humane method of dealing with unwanted children is by way of adoption; but there are others who have a kind of instinctive or doctrinaire repugnance to adoption and who are at some pains to discourage it.
Indeed the activities of one vigorous spinster of this school has earned for her group the sobriquet of the Society for the Persecution of Unmarried Fathers. Another lady was quoted in another place as having visited in prison an unmarried mother who had given up her child for adoption. This girl was of a very slow mentality; she was a constant prostitute; it was not her first illegitimate child and

she was a chronic petty thief. Persuasion and pestering on the part of this visitor eventually resulted in this unmarried mother withdrawing the consent which she had already given for that adoption. It was presented to her as a religious duty to take this child back, although she had no facilities for keeping it, and that it was a cross which she ought in duty bound to shoulder for the rest of her life. The interests of the child were never considered, nor even her own interests, let alone the unfortunate adopters'. And the woman took back her child, which had been living in a first-rate home and was now condemned to live in circumstances and under an influence which are very easy to imagine.
Another good lady, presumably of the same faction, is reported to have said that she herself would rather see children run over and killed in the street than brought up in a faith other than that to which she personally subscribed, if they had happened to have been born into it. Her connection with the adoption society was soon after terminated, but she has since attached herself elsewhere. It is to be hoped that the expert advisers, of whom Lord Simon made much play in another place, did not comprise such figures as these.
These Amendments come to us after a Debate in which most of their Lordships claimed to know very little about the subject, and one of them. Lord Simon, claimed to know everything about it. And it is probably true that he did indeed know everything about it. If, however, he had seen fit to exercise his great gifts of elucidation instead of his even greater gifts of obfuscation, I have no" doubt that his Amendment would not have been accepted.
My hon. Friend dwelt for some time on this principle of general consent. It was accepted by this House and rejected by their Lordships almost, as it were, through the back-door. It was sandwiched between two other proposals, both of them reasonable and acceptable proposals, one assuring religious continuity where the natural parent desired it, and the other the proviso whereby a child must be six weeks old before consent to adoption could be given. But it is notable that not one single argument was advanced against this principle of general consent.
Indeed, out of six columns in the OFFICIAL REPORT, only one sentence was addressed by the noble Viscount to that point at all. I do not know if I should be in order in quoting it or not:
a general consent is not to be given save in respect of an application which is pending before the court. Otherwise, this matter may be floating about for a long time, and the consent is not given sufficiently with reference to an application which has been made.
What on earth does this mean? "This matter may be floating about for a long time"! I do not know to what the word "matter" refers. It cannot possibly mean that it takes longer to get a general consent than a particular consent. So I assume that that half of the sentence is merely idle verbiage. As to the second half, if it means anything at all, it means that, unless their Lordships rejected the principle of general consent, that principle would be accepted!
In this House we accepted the principle of general consent for very good reasons. We saw no reason in the world why, if a young woman went either to an adoption society or to a local authority and there met some responsible, warmhearted, trust-worthy woman who satisfied her that her child would be properly placed and cared for, she should be forced by law to make any further enquiries. Alternatively, if the mother was indifferent about the fate of her child, there was nothing we could do by law to alter that frame of mind.
7.30 p.m.
But we had a third reason. General consent is the most securely confidential form of consent; and hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed that it is of the utmost importance that the identity of adopters should be concealed. Under the present Amendment, adopters must be named or described. There has been some comment on this already, and it seems to me that "description," whatever that may mean, is very liable—and this is where I want my hon. Friend to exercise the greatest care—to open the door to the disclosure of identity. For example, if in a description given it was stated that the adopter was a handsome man, enviably young-looking for his years, who once served with distinction as Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, there would be a very great difficulty in maintaining secrecy.
I do not really know what kind of a description could be given which would not be liable to this kind of danger. If a vague description is to be given, and if all that is going to be said to the mother is, "I can assure you, my dear young woman, that the family adopting your child is a very nice one," that assurance could be given and usually was given without this Amendment. Therefore, for that reason I am a little frightened of this particular point. And so what I want to do is to ask my hon. Friend to give us certain assurances. We are not opposing this Amendment, but it is possible, by Rules and by instructions to the relevant authorities, to see that some of the more dangerous aspects of these Lords' Amendments are partly covered.
The first assurance I ask for is that when an adopter is not named but is described, that the description must not be a conclusive one; it must not be a description which will make it easy for the recipient to identify the adopter. It should be only a general description. I think my hon. Friend has already met us to some extent on that point.
Secondly, my hon. Friend emphasised already in his speech that we have progressed to the extent that adopters may apply early instead of at the end of the three months' period. I want him to assure us—and this is of some importance—that it will be made known to adopters that they can apply early. I believe that in another place the Lord Chancellor, realising the importance of that point, volunteered to see that that would be done. We were, by the way, misled when we were told that at the end of three months the adoption order could be made. Some of us were also told by an "expert adviser" that there was normally only a delay of one month after the three months' period before finality. In point of fact, I am informed that there is seldom a delay of less than from four to five months if one chooses to go to the High Court; and the High Court, by the way, is the only court that ensures secrecy. Therefore, it is not a question of three months as the law stands at present, but a question of seven or eight months. Of this adopters should be warned, and that that period can be reduced by early application.
The third assurance which I want my hon. Friend to give is that in the courts


both sides shall be heard, if they so wish. In other words, when an application for the revocation of consent is put forward and is opposed by the adopters, those adopters shall be entitled to be heard in court by the judge; and, moreover, entitled to be heard in circumstances which will not make it very easy for their identity to be disclosed as, otherwise, this new procedure would make it very possible for a natural parent formally to oppose an application for adoption, to lie in wait, as it were, for the adopters to come into court and in that way to identify them. Which is something none of us wants. An instruction circulated by the Lord Chancellor would, I think, obviate that problem.
The last assurance which I want my hon. Friend to give is that adopters will be warned about the full ramifications of these Amendments. When a mother or a couple go to an adoption society or to a local authority intending to adopt a child, they should be told very clearly what the situation is and that they should not place any trust at all in a consent unless it is signed by a justice of the peace. It should be made perfectly plain to them that a consent can be revoked and they must be told that, even if it is signed before a justice of the peace, it may still be withdrawn with the consent of the court and that they must take that risk.
They must also be warned that even in that case they will have to remain in suspense, not for three months, but for seven or eight months or more: for if they desire secrecy, then the period of suspense is considerably longer than three months.
They should thus be warned that they cannot be guaranteed secrecy and that they cannot therefore really be guarded against persecution unless they are rich enough to be able to afford an application through the High Court. That is the most expensive way of doing it, but, unhappily, it is the only secure way. In the county court or in the juvenile court adopters are liable to exposure. I bitterly regret that during the passage of this Bill none of us, myself included, devised an Amendment calculated to alter that situation. I realise that it is too late now.
Finally, they must be warned that they are liable—I put it no higher than that—to be used as a mere lodging house

especially since our Amendment has not gone through and that there is no way whereby they can be compensated for any of the expenditure they have undertaken on behalf of somebody elses child, however poor they themselves may be.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot talk on the Amendment if it has been rejected. It was rejected, and therefore it is out of the way.

Mr. Levy: I apologise, Mr. Speaker; my reference to the Amendment was made in innocence, but I have, I think, said all I need. We may think—and I think that the House does—that adoption is the ideal solution of these problems, of problems that concern the unwanted child. But we must not mislead prospective adopters or allow them to be misled through any ignorance of the hazards that have been erected and the possible personal tragedies which they may be courting as a result of their good or innocent intentions.

Mr. Thurtle: Before my hon. Friend gives consideration to the appeal which has just been made to him, I wish to make two short points. On the question of the description of the adopter, it appears to me that what my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) was suggesting was that the description of the adopter should be so vague and nebulous that no one would be able to identify him. It seems to me that that is quite dishonest. If we are going to have such a description—from which it will be impossible to identify the person described—then we might just as well not have this provision in the Bill at all, I do not think that is in accordance with the traditions of our British Law that we should adopt a sort of hypocritical proceeding of that kind.
I would say this other word about the rules which are going to govern the right of appeal for the revocation of an order of adoption. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough said that the best way of having this point heard was to take it to the High Court. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office will give us a pledge that the rights of the mother will not be neglected. Mothers who have been separated from their children and who may conceivably have a change of heart


are provided for in the law by the machinery of appeal, but it should be incumbent upon my hon. Friend to see that the rules governing such appeals are such that they will enable the mother, who is normally in a desperate financial state, to be represented at this appeal and so have her case properly stated.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Clause 14. —(APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.)

Another Amendment made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment disagreed to: In page 9, line 19, leave out from "infant," to end of line 22, and insert:
In subsection (2), after the word "person," where that word first occurs, there shall be inserted the words "other than the consent of an infant"; and in subsection (3), for the words "admissible as evidence," there shall be substituted the words "sufficient evidence," and for the words "admissible as aforesaid," the words "sufficient evidence as aforesaid."—[Mr. Nield.]

Lords Amendment, in page 9, line 22, at end insert:
and in subsection (4) for any reference to rules there shall be substituted a reference to an Act of Sederunt, and any reference to a justice of the peace shall include a reference to the sheriff.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 1, to leave out: "and in subsection (4)."
This is purely a consequential Amendment upon the long Amendment which the House accepted to page 2, line 21.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

7.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to seek your Ruling on the following matter. When I sought to place what I

thought was an Amendment on the Order Paper for discussion with the other Amendments from another place, I was denied the opportunity of doing so. My Amendment related to a ground for divorce. Although a similar Amendment was ruled out of Order on a previous occasion, it nevertheless appeared on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member must not say what his Amendment is about. He can only complain that an Amendment which he wished to put in, was not allowed to be put on the Order Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In the light of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take up your time by arguing the relevance or otherwise at this stage of the Amendment which I sought to move by adding another new Clause to the three new Clauses and the six new subsections from another place. What I confess rather puzzled me was this; even assuming that my Amendment is now just as much out of Order as it was on a previous occasion, by what Ruling or Parliamentary convention should the Amendment have been allowed to appear on the Order Paper on a previous occasion but not on the present occasion?

Mr. Speaker: I quite realise that the hon. and gallant Member has done his best to get this Amendment on the Order Paper, but I am afraid it is impossible. He wishes to insert a new Clause. The Question which I shall put is that we consider the Lords Amendments. This is not a Lords Amendment. It is an Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member wishes to move, and we are not therefore empowered to put it on the Order Paper and consider it. I am afraid it would be starting quite a novel practice and I think an undesirable one too. If whenever one fails to get an Amendment on the Order Paper one put it down when Lords Amendments come up for consideration, it would be an undesirable practice on the whole, and I am afraid I must rule that the hon. and gallant Member cannot put his Amendment on the Order Paper.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Orders of the Day — Title

Lords Amendment disagreed to: In line 1, leave out from "divorce" to "making" in line 2, and insert:
and other matrimonial proceedings, the admissibility of evidence as to access, the charge and payment of percentage under the Lunacy Act, 1890, and the.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in lieu of the Lords Amendment disagreed to, in line 1, to leave out from "divorce" to "wards" in line 2, and to insert:
and other matrimonial proceedings, the admissibility of evidence as to access, the charge and payment of percentage under the Lunacy Act, 1890, and to.
The only difference between the Amendment which I am moving and the Lords Amendment is as follows. Instead of the last word "the" I desire the word to be "to." I desire also to omit two further words from the original Title. The original Title of the Bill as it left this House was:
to amend the law of divorce, to alter the law with regard to making infants wards of court.
As amended in another place it would read:
to amend the law relating to divorce and other matrimonial proceedings, the admissibility of evidence as to access, the charge and payment of percentage under the Lunacy Act, 1890, and the making infants wards of court; 
That phrase is rather clumsy and rather inappropriate to the Title of an important Measure. The effect of the Amendment I have just moved will be to alter the last words to:
and to wards of court;

Sir Peter Macdonald: I beg to second the Motion.

Orders of the Day — Clause 1. —(EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT IN CERTAIN MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 15, leave out:
in proceedings for nullity of marriage.

Sir P. Macdonald: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment as is the subsequent Amendment in line 17, at end, insert:
as they apply to proceedings for divorce.
I suggest that we consider them together.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to second the Motion.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Although these may be described as purely drafting Amendments, nevertheless they provide me with an opportunity, within the Rules of Order, of asking my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General or the hon. and learned Member for Daventry to dispose of this problem which arises in connection with petitions for nullity. As both the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Gentleman know, petitions for nullity in the case of voidable marriages may be presented, among other things, where either party is of unsound mind at the time of the marriage or subject to recurrent fits or epilepsy. They may also be presented where the respondent is suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form at the time of the marriage. The third category, which is not perhaps quite as important as the other two in this regard, arises where the respondent at the time of the marriage was pregnant by some person other than the petitioner. In all three categories proceedings must be instituted within 12 months of the date of the marriage, in addition to which, of course, the petitioner has to prove that he or she was ignorant at the time of the fact alleged in the petition.
How is that to be reconciled with the governing clause in another part of the Bill that the aggrieved wife in such circumstances must have resided, after having lost her domicile and having returned to this country, for three years in this country before being in a position to institute proceedings of any kind at all? I should be very grateful if this rather important point, which does not seem to have been discussed in another place, can be disposed of to the satisfaction of those who see in this a difficulty which has apparently not been envisaged by those who have hitherto interested themselves in this Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Interesting though it may be, I do not think this point arises on this Amendment—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. and learned Member has spoken once.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Perhaps, by leave of the House, I may speak again. I was not quite sure whether, in fact, I


had seconded the Motion or whether someone else had done so. I think two of us tried to second it. Interesting though this may be, and is, I do not think it arises from these Amendments because they are, in fact, purely drafting in character. The effect of this Clause in the Bill without these Amendments, and indeed with them, quite clearly extends the jurisdiction of the English court and at the same time does nothing to restrict any of the existing jurisdiction. It may be that it has not been extended enough, but we shall see in practice whether that is so. Views may differ about it. I do not feel that any useful purpose would be served at this time by my seeking to answer the points so ably put by the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Before the hon. and learned Member sits down—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is a strict rule against speaking a second time when the House is sitting as a House.

Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 17, at end, insert:
as they apply to proceedings for divorce.

Lords Amendment: In line 17, after the words last inserted, to insert:
(3) In proceedings under subsection (1) of section eight of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937 (which enables the court to make a decree of presumption of death and dissolution of marriage) the court shall have jurisdiction in the following cases only, that is to say—

(a) in any proceedings, if the petitioner is domiciled in England;
(b) in proceedings by the wife, if she is resident in England and has been ordinarly resident there for a period of three years immediately preceding the commencement of the proceedings;

and in determining for the purposes of this subsection whether a woman is domiciled in England, her husband shall be treated as having died immediately after the last occasion on which she knew or had reason to believe him to be living.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an important Amendment and it is not one which has been considered in this House, so I hope the House will forgive me if I say a few words in explanation of the new subsection and of the purpose it is intended to serve. Recently, in a case known as Wall v. Wall, reported in "The Times" on 10th November, it was decided in the High Court in England that the court had

jurisdiction in proceedings under Section 8 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, for a decree of presumption of death and dissolution of the marriage where the petitioner was resident in this country. On the other hand, there has been a decision in Scotland, in the Court of Session, that the petitioner must be domiciled in Scotland in order to obtain a decree founded on the corresponding provision of the Scottish Act. That being so, if the law were left as it is at the present moment, it is clear that there would be a conflict between the law of Scotland and the law of England in that residence would entitle one to sue in England and domicile would be required to bring proceedings in Scotland.
I should have thought, and I hope the House will agree, that it is clearly desirable that the basis of jurisdiction in the courts of the two countries should be brought into line, and it is with this object that this subsection has been added to the Bill in another place. The effect will be to reverse a decision in Wall against Wall so far as proceedings by the husband are concerned. He will in future only be entitled to seek a decree on the ground of presumption of death when he is domiciled in England, and also he will do so, of course, when he is domiciled in Scotland. It is not thought that the change in the English law will involve any hardship because, after all, a man is free to change his domicile. So far as proceedings by a woman are concerned the effect of this subsection is to bring it into line with the earlier parts of this Clause—that is to say, to secure that she will be able to have recourse to the courts of England if she has been resident in this country for three years.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Paget: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman forgive me? I have been trying to make out why this is necessary. Does not Clause 1 do it as well?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry if I have failed to deal with it. Clause 1, as it now stands in the Bill, does not deal with decrees of presumption of death and dissolution of marriage, and this new subsection is limited to that. The hon. and learned Gentleman may remember that when this Bill was in Committee of this House, I endeavoured to


move Amendments into it to deal with the question of decrees of presumption of death and dissolution of marriage—unsuccessfully, like the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton)—because the Title of my Bill was not wide enough to enable me to do so. It is, therefore, necessary now to have this special provision of this subsection, in view of that recent decision, to bring the law of Scotland and the law of England into line.
I hope, without taking any more time, that I have made the effect of this new subsection clear to the House. I would only add that the last few words of this new subsection (3) are intended to make it clear that a wife petitioner shall be at liberty to establish that, by virtue of her husband's presumed death, she has acquired a new domicile of choice in this country, if she desires to do so.

Sir P. Macdonald: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I hope very much this House will not agree with the Lords in this Amendment. If I may respectfully say so I do not think there is anything the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has said in his speech which would justify the House in accepting this Amendment, which I regard as a retrograde step.
I would ask the House to recollect that in every other single provision of this Bill changes have been made in the law with a view to giving additional relief to spouses who are anxious to obtain relief from matrimonial ties. This provision, which is being inserted at the last moment at the request of another House, is not intended to make it easier to get divorce. The object of this subsection is to make it more difficult to get a divorce in England. The only possible justification—and I think it is quite intolerable—which this Clause can have is the desire to bring the law of England into line with the law of Scotland. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out, this particular subsection was thought of at the last moment in another place—not until the Report stage—because of a decision of Mr. Justice Pearce in the case of Wall against Wall. I have the report of that case here.
I hope the House will follow this. As the law stands today, in accordance with this decision of Mr. Justice Pearce, which is reported in the Weekly Notes as recently as 18th November, 1949, the courts of this country today have jurisdiction to grant a decree of presumption of death and dissolution of marriage if the wife petitioner is resident in this country. The object of this subsection introduced by the House of Lords is to take away that right, and is to amend the law in order to provide that a wife petitioner shall not be entitled to petition for presumption of death and dissolution of marriage unless she is either domiciled in England or has been resident here for a period of three years.
At the present moment she can petition if she is resident here at the time of the petition. Residence alone is, and has been for a very long time, the basis of the jurisdiction of these courts, based on the jurisdiction of the former ecclesiastical courts in giving decrees of presumption of death, and, consequently, dissolution of marriage.
The reason for that distinction is a vital one. A decree of presumption of death, to which a decree of divorce is afterwards tacked on as a necessary corollary, is something totally different from jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage or to decree an annulment of marriage. The reasons for that distinction are made perfectly clear in the judgment of Mr. Justice Pearce, and I can only surmise from the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman that he really has not followed the reasoning of Mr. Justice Pearce, because I think it is completely convincing, and I see no adequate reason why this House should overrule it merely in order to bring it into line with the law of Scotland. If that is the only reason, I should prefer that the law of Scotland should be brought into line with the law of England.
This Bill is an enabling Measure. This Bill originally, let me remind the House, was a Bill of three Clauses when it was first introduced, and has gradually grown and grown; all credit to the promoters of this Bill, that it has gradually grown, from the time when it was first introduced as a Bill of three Clauses, to being a Bill of eight Clauses; and its title has been changed, and changed again. It is a matter of great regret to a great many


Members of this House and to a great many people outside the House that we have not had still further new Clauses, including the one my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) wanted to move, to enable people who have been separated for seven years to petition for a decree of divorce. Now that Clause, which was one of great consequence to the people of this country, has been left out, owing to the Ruling of Mr. Speaker, which is accepted. No doubt, one day it will be considered.
However, this Bill, as it was originally introduced, has developed and changed and grown with a great variety of different Clauses, and has been designed with the sole object of improving the law, of remedying defects, facilitating measures of relief in hard cases, removing hardship, and so forth; and now, at the last moment, for some quite extraordinary reason, we are asked to take a step back and say that the women of this country, who, at the moment, are entitled to' petition for a decree of presumption of death on the mere ground of residence in this country, should in future have to wait for three years. Now, I am concerned about this matter not merely because I think it is one of general interest but because I happen to have a person in my own constituency whose case is particularly affected by it, and the facts of which, with the leave of the House, I will indicate in a moment.
But I think it is important to remind the House of the distinction between a decree of presumption of death and a decree of nullity or divorce. It is given in these words by Mr. Justice Pearce in the decision of the case of Wall against Wall, which, for some extraordinary reason, we are now being asked to overrule. His Lordship said:
Although in many cases death had in fact already dissolved the marriage, the safeguard would take effect in the occasional cases where the person presumed dead was alive and an existing marriage would in fact have been dissolved by a decree of the court.… There is to my mind a fundamental difference between deliberately dissolving a marriage which the court knows to exist and dissolving (ex abundanti cautela) a marriage which the court presumes not to exist. Although there must always be some risk that the decree may alter status, owing to the party presumed dead being in fact alive, yet the degree of risk in each case should not be a large one. In practice the alteration in status, if it occurred, would not be severe.… Then must that risk deter the court from accepting jurisdiction?,

In my view relief under s. 8"—
of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, which is the Section 8 referred to in this Amendment—
is not primarily or in essence dissolution of marriage, and was not intended to be so. The dissolution was added as a safeguard.
The essence of the jurisdiction under Section 8 is a decree of presumption of death. Now the class of person who will be affected by this proposed change in the law is that of a lady who lives in my constituency, who since the war has married, in this case a Russian subject in Germany, a person who was then a displaced person; the union was not a success; they lived together for only two or three days; the husband's domicile was in Germany; she came back here, and has reason to believe that her husband is dead, although there is no possibility of proving it conclusively.
As the law stands at present she, being a resident in this country, is entitled to ask for a decree of presumption of death on facts which she can establish. If the change proposed by this Amendment is made she will have to wait three years from the day when she came back here "from Germany. I ask "Why should that be so?" and the reason I am given is that it will bring the law of England into harmony with the law of Scotland. Since when has it been a good ground for changing the law of England that to do so will bring it into harmony with the law of Scotland? I have great respect for Scots law, but when we are dealing with the question of removing hardship and anomalies I very much hope that this House will not, without much greater consideration, to the details of which I shall be very ready to listen, accept the Amendment proposed by another place.

Mr. Marlowe: The argument of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) was, I think, founded upon a false conception of the purpose of this Bill. He began by saying that he objected to this Amendment on the ground that the main purpose of the Bill was to facilitate divorce. That, of course, is a complete misunderstanding, because there is nothing in this Bill about facilitating divorce. The object of the Bill is to remove certain anomalies and to make the whole of the law of divorce more logical. That is precisely what this Amendment does; it brings the law into


line in many respects. If the hon. Gentleman understands that perhaps he will find it easier to accept the sense of this Amendment. The only alternative that I can see to accepting this Amendment is to leave the matter until some unfortunate litigant has to take the question to the House of Lords. That would be a far more expensive way of arriving at unanimity of decision as between English law and Scots law.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: There are plenty of respects in which the law of England differs from the law of Scotland. The law of England has been laid down by a judge of the High Court, and I do not think it matters if in this respect the law of England does differ from the law of Scotland.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman may not think so, but there are a lot of people who do think that in this particular matter it is very convenient to have the two in line. It may give rise to singular anomalies if in a matter of this kind there is this distinction between the laws of Scotland and England. The point I was making when the hon. Gentleman intervened—and I am sure he would not disagree with this—was that as a matter of case law they could be brought into line by somebody taking the question to the House of Lords, but that would be an extremely expensive business. It is far better that it should be done by this means.
It seemed to me that the hon. Gentleman argued his case from the particular to the general in the most unfortunate way. He gave an example which I suppose nobody is ever likely to hear again, of a woman who married a Russian displaced person in Germany, came to England, and would be affected by this subsection if it goes through in its present form. That must be a most exceptional case. On what the hon. Gentleman said it becomes even more surprising, because I gather that the lady can have only just arrived in this country, because he said she will have to wait three years. He did not tell us when she arrived, but if she has been resident here for any period that would count as part of the qualifying period. If she has been resident here for two years the delay would be only a year.
If the hon. Gentleman has, as I presume he has, read the Bill, he will have seen in Clause 1 that the residence qualification of three years is put into the Bill as a matter of general jurisdiction. It therefore seems very desirable that, if the general jurisdiction is to be set out in that form in Clause 1 there should also be precisely the same length of period to qualify for jurisdiction when divorce is sought on the ground of presumption of death. I am bound to say that there seems to be a very good case for treating these matters harmoniously and for trying to remove the illogicality which existed before. What the hon. Gentleman is trying to do is to perpetuate an anomaly which this Bill seeks to get rid of.

Mr. Paget: I hope the promoters of this Bill will not insist on this Amendment. I believe that they have done a very useful job—a job which will help many people—by bringing forward this Bill; and I believe that they have been very wise in the attitude they have adopted in accepting only reforms which are not controversial. Here they have introduced a subsection which is extremely controversial, and I do not myself feel that it is quite fair on the House to introduce it at this stage. I think that all of us who welcomed and gave a Second Reading to this Bill did so upon the ground that it enlarged the jurisdiction of the divorce court. I do not say for a moment that that was on the basis of making divorce easier. That certainly was not the intention. It was a question of enlarging the jurisdiction of the divorce court so that more people could get justice from probably the only court which was in fact available to them, for financial and other reasons.
To introduce at this stage a subsection which is, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me saying so, somewhat obscure, which until we have his explanation I, quite frankly, did not understand, and which in effect is simply to curtail the jurisdiction of the divorce court, does not seem to me to be fair at this stage. Those who gave a Second Reading to this Bill did so with the intention of enlarging the jurisdiction of the divorce court, and we ought not at this stage to cut it down without anybody really realising what has happened.
Now, the argument which is advanced for doing so is that it brings the law of


England into line with the law of Scotland. One might perhaps have had a more ambitious and even shorter Bill to say that in future 'the law of Scotland should apply to England. We have had two fundamental systems of law and two different systems of divorce law in these two countries throughout all history. The suggestion which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) was that this was a matter of bringing the two systems of law into line which could be solved by the House of Lords. The House of Lords might very well decide, as I think they would, that the law of England was right, or they might equally decide that the law of Scotland was right. One is the law of England and the other the law of Scotland. The ecclesiastical courts are quite different in Scotland. It is quite a different basis of jurisdiction in the Scottish courts. There is no theoretical reason why the two should be the same.
My hon. Friend has quoted a case of someone who married a displaced person. That may be a temporary state of affairs. In the case of sailors, that is very frequent indeed. A woman ordinarily regarded as an English woman marries a foreign sailor. He is domiciled in some foreign country. He disappears on a voyage. She has to remain three years before she can take proceedings in the English courts. That is surely a retrograde step. Surely when we gave a Second Reading to this Bill, we did not intend to curtail the jurisdiction of the Divorce Court in this way. I very much hope that at this stage the promoters will not insist on a proposal on which the House will certainly divide, and divide, I should have thought, in rather unsatisfactory circumstances.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I prefer the view which has been expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) to the two views which have been vouchsaved by my two hon. and legal Friends on this side of the House. I will say why. First there are very few cases of this particular kind. The case we are dealing with is an exception to the ordinary rule. Under the ordinary rule in matrimonial cases the test is domicile and not residence. In this particular case, as was decided on the authority which has been quoted, Wall v. Wall—a very recent case which,

I think, was decided only about two weeks ago—the judge held that the test was not domicile, but only residence.
But apart from that consideration, we are in some difficulty here. We are not in the ideal position in which we can say: We like this item and dislike the other; we are going to have this and not going to have that. The House is in the position tonight of either rejecting this Amendment or probably in the end losing the Bill, or on the other hand accepting the Amendment with the definite prospect that the Bill will go through. It is a similar compromise to that which we made an hour or two ago in the case of the Married Women (Maintenance) Bill, and it is probably just as essential to the preservation of this Bill as it was to that Bill.

Mr. Paget: What authority has my hon. and learned Friend for saying that? Is there the slightest reason to believe that the Lords would not accept it, if we did not agree with this Amendment? There is not the slightest reason for thinking anything of the sort.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is quite obvious that my hon. and learned Friend has not really thought about this matter, otherwise he would realise that the time factor is a very important matter indeed at the present moment. It is not merely a question of whether the Lords are going to accept the rejection of this Amendment. By the time it has been dealt with, this Bill may have been well and truly lost to the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: No.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is my view, and the mere two-fold croakings of a couple of hon. Members on either side of me does not alter it. In my submission, there is apart from the other considerations some merit in this proposal. It has been argued that it is contrary to what has been decided in Wall v. Wall, that the period before a petition of this kind can be presented should be three years. It is true that in the case of Wall v. Wall there was no time limit. It is equally true that anyone can be the petitioner whether an English woman or not; whether she has come here for five minutes or five years she


would equally have the right to institute these proceedings.
It occurs to me that there is some force in the case against this. If a person has to remain in this country for three years, we get rid of the objectionable possibility that that person may have deliberately come here in order to exploit our legal machinery and for no other purpose, and may then go away. There is also a second protection. In a matter of this kind we are asking the Court to make an order which brings to an end a very important relationship and terminates a very important status. It seems to me that it is not altogether a bad idea that there should be a fixed period of time in order that an opportunity may be given to discover whether the facts placed before the Court on an application to presume death are such that an Order can safely be made. Therefore, even on its merits, quite apart from the strategical reasons by which as I think if we reject this Amendment we may probably be rejecting the whole Bill with it, it seems to me there is also a great deal to be said for it on its merits.
Notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Gentleman for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said, the decision Wall v. Wall is by no means a unanimously accepted one in the legal profession. Any one who cares to look into the matter, as I myself have had to do recently very carefully, will find that there is a good deal of difficulty about that, and it is by no means certain that if this went to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords that the decision would necessarily be the same. Be that as it may, for the other reasons of a meritorious nature to which I have referred, I submit that there would be at least a very good case to be made out for the consideration of this Amendment on those grounds.

8.30 p.m.

In those circumstances, I do not think we are called upon to make an invidious choice as to whether we are going to bring the law of England into line with the law of Scotland. I should have thought that where this country could borrow something which is good from Scottish law it ought to do so, and it has done so with advantage on many occasions in the past. It so happens that by the law of Scotland there was this three-year rule, but I do

not think for a moment that the other place intended—

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I do not think that the Debate should proceed on any false assumption in regard to the law of Scotland. It is not a question of bringing the law of England into line with the law of Scotland. The law of Scotland desiderates domicile as the basis of jurisdiction, and this is a compromise between the two: that is to say, if it be the law of England, according to the decision of Mr. Justice Pearce, ordinary residence is sufficient to justify jurisdiction, whereas in Scotland domicile is required. Their Lordships have chosen three years, which is a compromise between the two, bringing it into a uniform pattern with the other parts of the Bill, and precluding difficulties in international law which might otherwise arise.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If a decree were made in this country, based upon residence, against a Scotsman domiciled in Scotland, is it by any means certain that the Scottish courts would recognise that decree?

The Lord Advocate: If residence alone was sufficient justification for jurisdiction in England, and the wife of a Scotsman came down to England and used London as a sort of European Reno and got a decree on the presumption of death, the consensus of opinion in Scotland is that that decree would not be recognised by the Scottish courts. Accordingly, if that woman came back to Scotland and tried to marry again she would be liable to a charge of bigamy. In these circumstances, it is manifestly desirable in the interests of social justice and of the welfare of the country, that there should be a uniform basis of jurisdiction in both countries. If there is a uniform basis of jurisdiction in both countries, there will be no difficulty in the courts of both countries recognising the decrees of each other.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am very much obliged for the illumination which the intervening debate of my two learned Friends has given to the House. I was about to say, before this intervention took place, that this was just as much an amendment to the Scottish law as it is to the English law. It is not really a question of bringing the law of Scotland into


line with the law of England at all. If it were, that would not necessardy—although I should have to consider it—be an objection to it. On the grounds I have indicated, I think that this is an Amendment which has much merit. In any case, we do not seem to have much option about it, and therefore I strongly advise the House to adopt it.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): It is unfortunate that this difference of view should have sprung up on this Clause, as the House will, I think, agree that this is a useful Bill, at any rate in other respects, if not in this also. What is the position in regard to the Clause? The law of Scotland requires that there should be domicile to found proceedings under Section 8 of the 1937 Act. The law of England as interpreted in the English courts in the case of Wall against Wall, is that domicile is not necessary, and that all that is necessary is mere residence. I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), when he says it does not really matter if the law of Scotland differs from the law of England.
As the Lord Advocate has just explained, quite apart from any other consideration, it may well be the case, and he thinks it would be the case, that the Scottish courts will refuse to recognise a decree pronounced upon this basis in England. I should have thought that to be a compelling reason, making it desirable to approximate the two systems one to the other. We have taken the two opposite points of view, as reflected in the two legislatures of the two countries, and brought them together as a sort of halfway line.
We have said that both in England and Scotland it shall no longer be necessary to establish domicile, that requiring the discharge of a major burden of proof, but, at the same time, we have altered the English law as to bring it part of the way towards the Scottish law by saying that residence shall not be mere residence of fleeting duration but a three-year period. That seems a reasonable way out of this difficulty. It is incorrect to say that we are changing the English law to make it conform to the Scottish law; we are doing nothing of the sort. We are changing laws of both countries in the matter of matrimonial status. It would be unfortunate, for the reasons which the

Lord Advocate has given, and many other reasons, that there should be this marked difference.
There are other considerations. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we have fixed upon a period of three years' residence, thereby bringing this subsection into accord with the remaining provisions of the Bill, which enable a married woman to obtain a decree of divorce, not for a mere fleeting period of residence but after a three-year period of residence. The uniform period to enable a decree of divorce to be obtained is now three years—three years in the case of nullity and now three years in the case of a decree under Section 8 of the 1937 Act, allowing death to be presumed so that, in consequence, a decree of divorce can be pronounced. It would be illogical and absurd to have a three-year period in all cases, and a period of only five minutes in this case—

Mr. Paget: This is not three years from the marriage; it is three years from the disappearance—entirely different.

The Solicitor-General: The Bill says that it shall be a three years' residence, and I cannot contradict the express terms of the Bill. It is not as if a right which already exists is being taken away in the large sense in which it is being suggested it will be taken away.
What are the majority of cases in which this sort of thing happens? A woman marries a man, the man disappears and she then wants to find out what her position is under Section 8 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937. She sees that she can present a petition if she can show that there are reasonable grounds for supposing that her husband is dead. Generally speaking, it is known that he has disappeared. Subsection (2) of Section 8 of the 1937 Act says:
In any such proceedings the fact that for a period of seven years or upwards the other party to the marriage has been continually absent from the petitioner, and the petitioner has no reason to believe that the other party has been living within that time, shall be evidence that he or she is dead until the contrary is proved.
I should have thought that that was a very frequent way of supplying the requisite requirements of proof. Somebody says that the person to whom she was married has disappeared for some seven years. The normal case that would


be affected by this provision is the case of the woman who marries a foreigner. He disappears, and when she is left destitute she comes back here to live and her period of residence expires. She has to wait about seven years because, until that time has elapsed, she cannot furnish the requisite requirements of proof, establishing the probability of his death. In any case much more than three years will have elapsed. Therefore, I should have thought that the practical effect of this is not to take away a right which a married woman would otherwise have. It would affect her only in a case where she had a strong reason to think that her spouse was deprived of his life in some particular accident. But even that is provided for, because if my hon. Friends look at the concluding words they will see they provide:
In determining for the purposes of this subsection whether a woman is domiciled in England, her husband shall be treated as having died immediately after the last occasion on which she knew or had reason to believe him to be living.
In practice, supposing she last knew him to be living at a particular time, he is deemed from that time to be dead. If she subsequently comes back she can acquire a new domicile in her own country from that time, and in a number of cases she will not be required to reside there for three years. Her spouse may be involved in an accident, and if that accident deprives him so far as she knows of his life, his widow can come back and obtain a fresh domicile in this country, for
her husband shall be treated as having died immediately after the last occasion on which she knew … him to be living.
In other words, the fact that an accident took place in which in all probability he lost his life is perfectly sufficient under subsection (3, a) to enable her to institute these proceedings.
I respectfully submit to the House that this attempted compromise is an effort to get over an obvious anomaly, which causes great distress in particular cases; for example, a woman who gets a decree in England, then remarries, and is subsequently prosecuted for bigamy in Scotland. This Lords Amendment would prevent that kind of thing happening, and, in addition, it tidies up the law and makes it uniform and consistent. For

the reasons I have given, very few women will be in the least disadvantaged by this law. It will be a rare case in which the fears of my hon. Friends will be experienced, and I hope that the House will agree with this useful change to get over a difficulty which has arisen.

Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not deal with the point about expediency made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) scoffed at the possibility of the Bill being lost unless this compromise is accepted. May we be given guidance on these matters?

The Solicitor-General: I am not sure that I can give any solid guidance about those matters beyond saying that this Bill has passed through a long stage and has been subject to very minute inquiry by experts in this branch of the law, particularly in another place. I should have thought it was very unlikely that the fears of my hon. Friends would, in fact, enter into it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I must confess that the weight of the argument is still against the Lords Amendment. A controversial issue has been raised. I have suffered as much as any Member of this House from the principle that in a Private Member's Bill no controversial issues shall be raised. In fact, an Amendment I sought to raise at an earlier stage was ruled out of Order on the ground that it was a controversial issue.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. and gallant Gentleman should address himself to the question of whether we agree with the Amendment from the House of Lords or not. He ought also to remember that the Amendment to which he refers was ruled out of Order not because it was controversial, but because it was outside the scope of the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If that is so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall not pursue that aspect of the matter. The fact remains that in the discussion of this Amendment there appears to be a certain difference of opinion which I interpret as giving rise to a certain amount of


controversy. The Solicitor-General surprised some of my hon. Friends when he stressed the need for this particular Amendment on the ground that it was sought to bring into some kind of harmony and some degree of closer relationship the law of Scotland with the law of England. For that purpose, a period of three years has been chosen, not, so far as I can see, because of any particular merit attaching to the period of three years but merely because "three years "happens to be mentioned in another part of the Bill. So, for that reason, it was decided that this Amendment should also introduce a waiting period.
The Solicitor-General has brought forward the argument that if the law of England remains unaltered a Scotswoman taking advantage of the law would be prosecuted for bigamy if ever she returned to Scotland. I would seriously ask him whether he really believes that the police authorities in Scotland would prosecute a woman for bigamy who had obtained a decree of presumption of death of her husband in an English court? Would he really ask the House to believe that that is a practical possibility that inevitably would arise out of the rejection of this Amendment? I find it hard to believe that that would be the case.
The argument against the Clause applies not only to the principle of bringing the law of England into line with Scottish law. It has been argued that it would only apply to a few cases, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has shown that it would apply to many cases and that there would be particular hardship in a type of case to which reference has not yet been made. In that connection I would present this kind of case: where a woman had been married to a man of non-British domicile and had been living abroad say, for five years or more since her husband had disappeared. She comes back to this country. Let us assume that she returns after her husband has been missing for six years. She has to wait for one year before the seven years are expired after which she can take proceedings under the law as it stands. She would then have to wait another two years, making nine years in all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The same principle applies if the husband has been missing for seven

years. The wife returns to this country and she has to wait another three years, making 10 years in all, before she can take proceedings. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
The only effect of insisting upon this provision at this late stage of the Bill will be to induce men and women to take advantage of a semi-official arrangement, the nature of which is not perhaps as well known as it ought to be. Under the arrangement I have in mind it is possible, irrespective of whether a woman is domiciled in this country or whether she has been here for three years, in certain circumstances for that woman to go to any registry office in the country with the man she wants to marry. The registrar will perform the marriage ceremony after having secured a signature on a very simple form, which occupies half a sheet of notepaper. The form is kept in a drawer in every registry office in the country. This document is not even a statutory declaration. It is not an affidavit.
This document which has been in existence for at least six years and which was issued by the Registrar-General, enables any man or woman to go to the registry office and to sign a statement to the effect that the wife or the husband has been continually absent for seven years or more; that all possible inquiries have been made; and that the person who signs fully understands that if it is found that the former wife or husband is still living at the time of the marriage they now intend to make, the marriage will be invalid from the beginning and any children born of it will be illegitimate.
The possibility of a husband or wife who has been absent for seven years or more ever appearing again is fairly remote. It is sufficiently remote not to deter those who wish to marry under the arrangement to which I have referred. It is true that the attention of the parties concerned is drawn to the provisions of Section 8 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, but I feel very strongly that if this House, by virtue of any Amendment or compromise, makes it more difficult than it is already to obtain a decree of presumption of death, more and more people will take advantage of this very simple arrangement which can be entered into in any registry office in the land. They will merely sign a slip of paper and the marriage will take place.
If the husband or wife who has been absent for seven years or more reappears, it is true that the second marriage will be invalid, and that may cause difficulties for that class of the community where there may be trusts or settled land. But those are not the categories of people with whom this Bill and the general Measures of divorce law reform are principally concerned. For these reasons, I suggest that the position might be reconsidered with a view to removing from what we all consider to be a useful Bill a new item introduced at a late stage which will impose hardship in some cases and which, because of that very fact, is not in line with the whole spirit and atmosphere of the rest of the Bill. It is a Bill which, though the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) said to the contrary, provides facilities for divorce which have not hitherto existed under the present law.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) was right when he said that this Amendment is definitely not in line with the whole tenor of the rest of the Bill. I think that it might be well worth while for the promoters to consider disagreeing with this Amendment I am quite sure that, with the goodwill which has already manifested itself in this House and in another place, the fact that we are asking for this Clause to be withdrawn will not prejudice the advantages we are all hoping will accrue from the passage of the remainder of the Bill.

Mrs. Leah Manning: May I ask the learned Solicitor-General a question? In the case which has been outlined in the last speech, would it be open for a party to apply for dissolution of the marriage three years later and to obtain the discretion of the court in regard to the cohabitation which had taken place in the three years?

The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might reply to that question? I do not want to be assenting to the description of the practice of registrars which we have just heard. I do not know whether it is accurate or not. With regard to the question I have been asked, if two persons go through a form of marriage together, and, being already married, one then seeks to obtain a dissolution of that marriage, the court would

have jurisdiction to grant the dissolution, provided that the judge in the circumstances of such a case thought that it was proper to exercise his discretion in favour of the petitioner.

Lords Amendment: In line 17, after the words last inserted, to insert:
(4) In any proceedings in which the court has jurisdiction by virtue of this section, of section thirteen of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, or of section one of the Matrimonial Causes (War Marriages) Act, 1944, the issues shall be determined in accordance with the law which would be applicable thereto if both parties were domiciled in England at the time of the proceedings.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I hope we shall be able to make a little faster progress, because the time for the discussion of this Bill is strictly limited, and it is not, I understand, Government Business. I hope we may progress faster, because most of us will want to see this Bill complete its passage through this House now that it has travelled so far.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to put this question? Are we to understand that the suspension of the Rule today does not apply to this Bill, because that must be a material factor in considering how we are to behave? May I have a Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

The Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I think it does apply to this Bill, and that the Rule is suspended so far as this Bill is concerned. I will find out and will let the House know, and, perhaps, in the meantime, the hon. and learned Gentleman will continue with his speech.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope we shall—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is Government Business. It is starred on the Order Paper, and I think I was right.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am glad to receive that elucidation, which certainly allays some fears which I felt during the discussion of the last Amendment, when I began to wonder whether we should get this Bill or not.

Mr. Ede: May I express the hope that that knowledge will not make hon. Members too discursive?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: For once, I am in full agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. This Amendment is an important one, though I do not think that it has aroused any controversy. It arises in this way. Until the passage of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, the courts in this country had no jurisdiction to grant decrees unless the parties were domiciled within this country. Under Section 13 of that Act, for the first time, jurisdiction was given to the English Courts in cases where the wife was deserted by her husband or where her husband had been deported from this country, and where the husband, immediately before the desertion or deportation, was domiciled in this country, the court had jurisdiction. It has always been assumed by text-book writers and others that, when we had cases of that kind arising, the law to be applied was the law of England.
9.0 p.m.
It is desirable that it should be made as clear as it can be what the position is, and that is what this subsection purports to do. The House will see that in any proceedings in which the court has jurisdiction under this Clause of the Bill, under the 1937 Act, or under Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes (War Marriages) Act, 1944, this new subsection provides that the issue shall be determined in accordance with the law which would be applicable thereto if both parties were domiciled in England at the time of the proceedings.
That is quite simple to apply so far as the law of divorce is concerned, but I would not be frank with the House if I did not reveal that that does not, in fact, entirely solve the difficulty with regard to nullity. So far as that is concerned, a lot of hon. Members tonight will appreciate that some marriages are void ab initio and some are voidable. So far as the ones void ab initio are concerned, in some cases the English courts determine the question of capacity in accordance with the law of each party's domicile immediately before the marriage. So far as voidable nullity cases are concerned, the law applicable may be that of the husband's domicile at the time of the marriage, or, alternatively, at the time of the commencement of the proceedings.
There is a good deal of conflict of authority about that, and it has not been

possible in the time since this Bill left this House to resolve all those difficulties. We recognise that in agreeing with the Lords Amendment we are not making much of a contribution to the solution of the problem with regard to nullity. All the same, this Clause as far as it goes, is in my opinion extremely desirable, and I hope with that explanation of it, and with the admission of its limitations, we will not have a prolonged Debate upon it, and can agree with their Lordships that this is a useful addition to a non-controversial Measure.

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to second the Motion.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2. —(EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION OF COURT OF SESSION IN CERTAIN CONSISTORIAL PROCEEDINGS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 5, leave out "in proceedings for nullity of marriage."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the next two in line 7 makes provision for Scotland corresponding to that made for England by the previous Amendments.

Orders of the Day — New Clause. —(LEGITIMACY OF CHILDREN OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 28, insert new Clause "A"—
A.—(1) Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage, any child who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if it had been dissolved, instead of being annulled, on the date of the decree shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the annulment.
(2) Subsection (2) of section seven of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937. is hereby repealed.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is really designed to deal with the situation which arose consequent upon the decision in Dredge against Dredge. It is intended to provide that where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage, the child of that marriage shall not, ipso facto, be declared illegitimate. I think


that in one case the decree of nullity was obtained after the child had reached a considerable age—I have forgotten exactly what it was; I am not sure it was not 17 or 18—and then the voidable marriage being determined by the decree of nullity, that child at that age was then declared illegitimate. I am sure the House will agree that that is wrong. It is not only wrong where the marriage is annulled on the grounds of wilful refusal, but it is wrong if there is a child born of the marriage as a result of artificial insemination or of what lawyers call by a Latin expression.
The effect of this Clause is not to provide that the child of the marriage is declared legitimate but to provide that the position of the child of the marriage should be exactly the same as if, instead of a decree of nullity being obtained, there was a decree of divorce. That is to say, there will be a presumption of legitimacy, a presumption which in certain cases may be rebutted. It would be quite wrong to provide in a Clause of this sort that there should be what would amount to a declaration of legitimacy. That would be going too far. What is obviously wrong, however, and with what this Clause is intended to deal, is that the effect of the decree of nullity where there is a voidable marriage should amount, where there is a child of the marriage, to a declaration of illegitimacy.
The question may be asked why this Clause is limited to voidable marriages as distinct from the cases where a decree of nullity is granted on the ground that the marriage was void ab initio? In the case of a voidable marriage one proceeds on the assumption that the marriage has been in existence for some time—indeed, exists until it is set aside because it is voidable, although the form of the decree takes a rather different form, but in the case of the void marriage, where for instance a person already married goes through a form of marriage, when he goes through that form of marriage there is never any marriage at all. It is, indeed, difficult to say, therefore, that there shall be a presumption of legitimacy in respect of a form of marriage when, in fact, there has been no marriage at all. It is for those reasons that this Clause is drawn in this way. I hope these observations have made it clear to the House.

Mrs. Manning: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down may I ask him a question? In the question of artificial insemination, does it not make any difference at all whether the donor is or is not the husband?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This Clause deals only with the case where the husband would be the donor. It does not deal with the bigger question, which is a more difficult question, as to any other case of artificial insemination—whether that presumes adultery or not. This merely says that where there is a child of the marriage, produced maybe by artificial insemination, it will be presumed to be a child of the marriage until the contrary is proved, notwithstanding that a decree of nullity is subsequently obtained.

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to second the Motion.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I do not know, Sir, whether you propose to accept the Manuscript Amendment which I have handed in.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. The hon. and gallant Member should move it now.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 2 "to leave out 'voidable.'"
The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) gave what I must say, with all respect, was not a very convincing argument in favour of the differentiation which is being introduced between marriages which are void ab initio and marriages which are voidable. The fact remains that in both cases, where the marriage is void ab initio or where it is voidable, petitions may be presented to the courts for nullity. The distinction that is made between these two categories of marriage in respect of which a petition for annulment may be presented is somewhat artificial.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is it not the case that where a marriage is void there is no marriage at all, but where a marriage is merely voidable the parties to it can allow it to go on or can make an application through the courts to bring it to an end. That second marriage, however, does not come to an end until it is so decreed, whereas the other marriage has never been a marriage from the very start.

Lieut.-Colonel Upton: If ray hon. and learned Friend's argument is accurate, I have never been able to understand why it is necessary to go to the court to petition for nullity in the case of a marriage that is void ab initio.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: If I may answer that point—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: No, I had better get on.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: But my hon. Friend has put the question to me. He should let me answer it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Let me try to proceed. My hon. and learned Friend can, no doubt, say what he wants to say afterwards. The point which I am seeking to make is that the distinction between void and voidable marriages, in the view of ordinary people—and here I exclude my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels)—is regarded as somewhat artificial and of no very great consequence.
The position is this. A petition for nullity can be made in the case of a voidable marriage where either party was of unsound mind at the time of the marriage or subject to recurrent fits of insanity or epilepsy. That is a case in which a petition for nullity of a voidable marriage may be presented. A marriage that is regarded as void ab initio is a marriage where one of the parties was insane at the time the marriage was contracted. I would ask the House to consider what is the distinction between a person who has embarked upon a voidable marriage because he was of unsound mind at the time of the marriage, or because he was insane—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is usually the case.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If we are going to confer any benefit at all upon the unfortunate issue of a marriage in such circumstances, there seems to be no valid reason why the issue of the marriage in the one case should continue to be illegitimate and the issue of the marriage in the other case should continue to be legitimate. I think we should be doing a very useful service if for the purpose of this Amendment we disregarded the distinction that is made between void and voidable marriages. The whole spirit of

the times in which we live is to make as many people legitimate as we possibly can. I think it is somewhat retrograde when we are considering a reform of this kind to limit this reform or boon merely to one class of nullity case and not to the other.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to add one or two words in support of my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not make any apology for doing so in view of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this Bill is exempted Business. After all, we are dealing with a very important subject here. We are making a number of changes in the law of the land relating to marriage, divorce, legitimacy, and so forth; and I think it is our duty to spend a little time on these important changes, particularly as, in fact, this is the only opportunity the House has of considering them. I am not complaining that the matter comes before us in this way, but it is worth while pointing out that very important and substantial changes in the law of the land are coming up for discussion tonight on consideration of Lords Amendments to a Bill which was passed by this House some time ago when it was not contemplated that matters of this nature would arise. Therefore, I do not think it would be right for the House to accept these Amendments lightly or without considering what is involved.
I think the first thing to observe with regard to this new Clause is that it will become the ninth Clause of a Bill which already consists of eight Clauses, but when it was introduced, consisted of three; and all of the Clauses deal with a different subject matter. We all support the idea of removing hardships, and of putting an end to the quite indefensible anomaly that hitherto persons born in wedlock of a marriage which was afterwards declared null on the ground that it was a voidable marriage still have the stigma of illegitimacy attached to them.
This Amendment seeks to introduce one further degree of logic into the argument, and to provide that the status of legitimacy shall also be retained by persons born in wedlock of a marriage which is at a later date annulled on the ground that it was a void marriage and


not merely a voidable marriage. As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, the distinction between void marriages and voidable marriages is highly technical. One can appreciate the argument that once a marriage has been declared a nullity, as the law stands today, ipso facto the children of that marriage are reduced in status from legitimacy to illegitimacy.
This Clause goes a certain part of the way—but it does not go the whole way—to redress that hardship. Why does it not go the whole way? It would be wrong for me to quote what was said in another place, but it is quite obvious for the speeches that were made in another place why this new Clause gives only a partial remedy instead of a complete remedy—because, as I read the Report of the speeches in another place, some of their Lordships thought it might be controversial if they went the whole way. We have heard so much tonight and on earlier occasions as to what might be called controversial or not, that I think, as my hon. and gallant Friend has thought for a long time, that it is a great pity that some matters that might then have been thought controversial were not introduced into this Bill. We now know that there is no reason for not making desirable amendments in this branch of the law, or for being timid about making them, merely because they may introduce an element of controversy.
I do not know whether or not it is controversial to suggest that this Clause should be extended to confer the benefit of legitimacy to those children, the marriage of whose parents is subsequently annulled on the ground that it was a void marriage and not merely a voidable marriage. If it is controversial, I imagine someone will get up and ask why that is controversial and why this present Clause is non-controversial. I gather it was merely the fear of introducing some element of discordance that prevented their Lordships from going a stage further, making this Clause apply to all decrees of nullity, and saying that wherever a decree of nullity was granted the offspring of the marriage should have the same status as if the marriage had been dissolved.
If one forgets all the historical content in which the law relating to the distinctions between nullity and divorce has

grown up, and still more if one ignores the highly technical distinctions between a void marriage and a voidable marriage, it seems to me that we in this House tonight, attempting to do justice to a class of particularly unfortunate people—that is to say, children who at the time they were born were legitimate, who have grown up always thinking that they were legitimate, but who at some later date, for some purely accidental reason for which they certainly could not be responsible, find that the marriage of their parents was annulled—for some ecclesiastical or some other reason—should not perpetuate a hardship on that class of person, and there is no reason why they should relapse from a state of legitimacy into a state of illegitimacy.
I hope that the promoters of this Bill—who I think we all acknowledge have throughout, with the one exception we were debating a little while ago, tried to introduce some very humane and desirable improvements in the state of the law—will accept the logic of these conclusions and grasp the opportunity afforded by the introduction of this Clause in another place, in order to perfect a remedy for which I think they would earn great gratitude.

Sir P. Macdonald: As I am appealed to as one of the promoters of this Bill to accept this Clause, I would point out that these Clauses were introduced in another place by the Government. This Bill is, therefore, now Government business, and before we embark on a controversial discussion I think it is the duty of the Solicitor-General to explain why the Clause has been introduced. Perhaps we might then be able to get this Bill through tonight.

Mr. Fletcher: If the Solicitor-General wishes to reply to that interjection I will certainly give way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would continue with his speech and not have a series of interruptions.

Mr. Fletcher: I have no doubt the Solicitor-General will* reply in due course to that point, particularly as the question was addressed to him and not to me. In so far as I can comment on it, I would only say it does not appear to me that this Bill was a Government Bill


in another place. It was sponsored in another place place by a Private Member of that House.

Sir P. Macdonald: I was present during the Debate, and the Lord Chancellor was really in charge of the Bill. Although certain Amendments were moved by a noble Lord who happens to be a Conservative, the fact remains that the Bill has been adopted, that it is Government business, and that during the preceeding stages of the Bill—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may make the point in his speech later on.

Mr. Fletcher: I think that this interruption was unfortunate and quite irrelevant. It happens to be contrary to the facts, because the fact is that this Bill was introduced as a Private Member's Bill in this House and in another place. It was sponsored by a Private Member in the course of Second Reading, and in the course of arguments in Committee, the Lord Chancellor made certain observations, and it was throughout hoped that this Bill would go through with the minimum of controversy. I also hope that the Bill will go through with the minimum of controversy, but the object of this Amendment is to suggest that the House should not be unduly timid about doing the right thing merely because it thinks that it may be introducing an element of controversy. Personally, I doubt whether that element of controversy will be introduced. If it is, it is for the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) to tell us why there is this controversy.

The Solicitor-General: If I may refer for a moment to the observations made by way of interjection by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald), may I say that I shall be only too delighted if I can be of assistance to the House. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was giving the House all the assistance that could be required by way of explanation of the Clause which he was asking the House now to accept. If I can supplement anything which he has said, I shall be only too happy to do so.
This Bill on its inception was a Private Member's Bill, and the hon. Gentleman

has been explaining its further progress to the House. May I first deal with the manuscript Amendment which has been moved? While I think that everyone would agree that whatever can be said about the conduct of the parents, the unfortunate children should so far as possibly be protected, I cannot help thinking that this Amendment goes a great deal too far. There are drafting objections, but I will deal first with the substance of the case which could be made against this suggested change.
It is suggested that by leaving out the word "voidable," void marriages could be brought within the scope of the new Clause. If that is done, it would mean that marriages which are void for a great variety of reasons would be within the Clause. Let us, for example, take the case where a man thinks that he is marrying "A" when by fraud he is induced to marry "B." That is a perfectly possible case. It includes the case of marriages induced by duress and by threats, as well as the case where the marriage ceremony is completely inadequate and does not constitute anything which in a civilised country would be regarded as a marriage ceremony. It includes a whole variety of cases.
Take the case of duress or fraud. The effect of the Clause is this. If the marriage becomes subject to a decree of nullity the children of the marriage are, nevertheless, if it could have been dissolved, to be deemed to be the legitimate issue of the two parties of that marriage. I should have thought that, much as one desires to afford every kind of protection to the unfortunate innocent children of any union, it is going too far to say that if a person has been trapped or forced or threatened into the union, which he would never have entered into, or intended to enter into, or knew that he was entering into, he should have the issue of that union declared the legitimate issue of himself and the person with whom he was forced to enter into a spurious bond of marriage. I should have thought that was going a great deal too far.
9.30 p.m.
The effect of the Clause, if it is altered in the sense of the manuscript Amendment, would be that in a case where a person is trapped into marrying someone


he did not mean to marry, if he is defrauded into it, it is nevertheless, declared that the issue of that union is a lawful issue.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Will the Solicitor-General indicate why he thinks it is wrong that a child properly and naturally born of such a marriage, and legitimate when born, should subsequently be declared illegitimate because the marriage is annulled?

The Solicitor-General: To talk about it being a marriage is a complete misstatement of the facts. It is a marriage in nothing else but its mere spurious form; it is, in fact, no marriage at all. The circumstances are aggravated by the state of affairs brought about by a trap or threat, and to hold that children born of that spurious marriage are legitimate is going too far. In the case of such a marriage, the effect is not that the court declares that the marriage has subsisted for a certain time, but that there has, in fact, been no marriage at all. As a matter of drafting and machinery, the Clause would not work with the manuscript Amendment. In point of fact, there would have been no marriage to dissolve, because the court makes a declaratory statement to the effect that there was no marriage at all. Therefore, to change the Clause in this sense is to alter the whole basis I have indicated.
I prefer to consider the matter on its merits, because the House will pay more attention to the merits, anxious as Members naturally are to do anything they can for the children of any such union. I submit that it is going too far, because it would bring in cases where declarations of legitimacy would work a great hardship on the persons induced to enter into such a union. On the working of the Clause, I submit that this would introduce an unreal position, because it is assumed that a marriage that has never existed could nevertheless be dissolved. That is a complete contradiction in conception.
For these reasons, I hope the House will consider that we have gone far enough in the Clause. It assists the issue of voidable marriages and greatly extends the scope of Section 7 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, which in some cases, but only in come cases, legitimates the

issue of void marriages. We have not greatly extended it, but we have covered the cases where we think it is proper and possible to assist the issue of a marriage. As I have said, we think it is going too far to call into being a marriage that never existed and say that if that marriage is dissolved the children should be legitimate.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 6. —(EVIDENCE OF ACCESS.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 3, line 20, leave out "in England."

In line 21, leave out
for divorce or nullity of marriage.

In line 25, leave out "such", and insert "any."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, as a consequential Amendment, in page 3, line 26, at the end to insert:
(3) Section four of the Adoption of Children Act, 1949, shall cease to have effect.
This Amendment may appear to be rather odd, as we were considering, earlier, the Adoption of Children Bill which, we hope, will shortly become law. The effect of this alteration is to provide that the rule in Russell v. Russell shall be contained in one Act of Parliament and not spread over two.

Amendment agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CALF SUBSIDY SCHEME, SCOTLAND

9.36 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move,
That the Draft Calf Rearing Subsidy Scheme (Extension and Payment) (Scotland) Order, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.
The purpose of this Order is to make an adjustment in payments under our calf rearing subsidy scheme. The present payment is £4 for a steer calf and £3 for a heifer calf, and the proposed new payment, as set out in the order, is £5 for a steer calf and £2 for a heifer calf. Hon. Members will recall that the calf scheme was introduced, with the approval of the House and the agriculture industry, at the


time of the launching of the expansion programme in August, 1947. Up to now there has been no specific statutory authority for payments under the scheme. They have been made under the annual Appropriations Act. Specific statutory powers were given only in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act this year, and this order is brought forward in accordance with the provisions of that Act.
Perhaps I should call attention to the only material difference between the provisions in the Scottish order and the scheme as applied to England and Wales. It is that in Scotland we endeavour to inspect calves, for the purposes of the scheme, after about 12 months, while in England and Wales inspection and certification takes place at or about eight months. The reason why we have adopted the 12-month period all along is that the scheme is operated centrally, that is to say, the Department of Agriculture for Scotland does not employ agricultural executive committees. We have a number of full-time inspectors who do the job, and we know that we derive some benefit from them; we have a greater uniformity in inspection and certification than we believe would be possible otherwise, and there also seems to be undoubted economy in doing the work in this way. Any advantage that we get from doing it in this way in Scotland would be lost if we endeavoured to have the calves inspected at about eight months. We believe the system we adopt in Scotland is acceptable to the interests concerned. The cost of the inspection and certification in Scotland is near enough to 2s. 6d. per calf inspected.
Perhaps I should say just a word in explaining why we are proposing to change from £4 and £3 to £5 and £2. In the first place, we find in respect of all calves which have been inspected and certified' and in respect of which a subsidy has been paid that the ratio as between heifers and steers is approximately two to one. In other words, amongst the calves, two heifers to every steer calf are assisted under this scheme. That leads us to believe that there is a possibility that the raising of animals for milk is being encouraged by the provisions of the scheme. We have taken the view and expressed it in this House before that milk is sufficiently encouraged in

other ways, and the whole purpose is to encourage beef production.
We believe that by going over from £4 and £3 to £5 and £2, we shall be giving that little bit of incentive to beef production, and will not be spending so much money on animals which in any case will be raised for milk. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture announced in the House as far back as the 1st June that he proposed to make those changes and we are giving effect to that scheme now. Since the scheme was introduced in 1947 the number of calves marked and set aside in Scotland by 30th September this year was 364,494.
We have had consultations with the organised opinion within the industry as to the desirability of continuing the scheme in the slightly amended form. The scheme as amended by this order has the approval of organised opinion in the industry, and the House will have no trouble in approving it.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: I will not detain the House a moment on this question, because it is true to say we had a very full discussion in Standing Committee upstairs on the particular Bill and all the arguments for and against were put on that occasion. This is a method of encouraging farmers to carry on to the beef stage animals that were of a beef potential. I have always taken the view that it would be as well to see how the scheme worked and examined it as it went along. The change in balance as between bulls and heifers is a sensible thing, because it is absurd when desiring to increase our production of beef to put too much stress on the female calf. I only want to ask a question. I presume that the agricultural organisations in Scotland have been consulted in this matter, and are thoroughly agreeable to the alterations and that they consider them in the best interests of beef production.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: In welcoming this order I should like to support what my hon. Friend has already said about the increased subsidy that is being given for bull calves. That is a necessary thing to do, because heifer calves would be raised in any event either for dairy


herds or for increased herds of beef cattle on the hills. Therefore, what we have to do is to give an impetus to the maintenance of bull calves in order to increase the meat ration of this country.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland give us any estimate of what this is likely to cost?

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Fraser: The total amount of the subsidy paid up to 30th September this year under this arrangement was £1,043,901. Organised opinion in the industry has been consulted and, as I said earlier, has assented to the making of this order.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to divide that subsidy between bull calves and heifer calves?

Mr. Fraser: The amount paid in respect of steers is £399,324, and in respect of heifers £644,577.

Orders of the Day — PASTURE ACREAGE, SCOTLAND

9.46 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move:
That the Agriculture (Maximum Area of Pasture) (Scotland) Order, 1949, dated 10th November, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
The purpose of this order is simply and clearly stated in paragraph 2. Perhaps I should make it clear that the fact that my right hon. Friend has seen fit to bring forward this order, which gives him powers of direction over farmers, must not be taken as evidence that my right hon. Friend feels that the policy of freedom has failed. He believes that the policy of freedom has not failed and that the great majority of farmers are doing a first-class job of work. There are, however, once or two—not a great number—here and there who are believed by their colleagues, the farmers, by the National Farmers' Union and by the Agricultural Executive Committees, to be doing slightly less than they might do under present circumstances. They have expressed the view that the Secretary of State ought to

have the powers of direction which are contained in this order.
The House will remember that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture introduced a somewhat similar order in July, 1948, and at that time questions were asked why we in Scotland did not have an order. As I think was explained then, we could not have an order even had we wanted to because we had no statutory authority to make one. In any case, we were not altogether satisfied that an order of this kind was necessary. However, the acreage under crop has gone down considerably since the end of the war. It has gone down by 226,000 acres. Recently when the Secretary of State met the N.F.U. Council, and a little later when I met the branch and area chairmen of the National Farmers' Union, subsequent to which meetings there were consultations between the N.F.U. area and branch representatives and the Agricultural Executive Committees, the view was expressed that we ought now to take advantage of the provisions of Section 35 of the Act of 1948 and make an order of this kind.
I do not think that I need say more in introducing the order. The powers proposed will certainly not be used indiscriminately. They will be delegated to the agricultural executive committees. Persuasion will be the rule, and direction under the order will be reserved for the exceptional cases. I repeat that there are a few farmers who, we believe, are allowing too much of their land to go back to grass. We appreciate that many farmers who cropped very heavily during the war must, if they are to continue to farm their land well and in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, allow a certain part of the acreage to go back to grass. In the not-so-good land in Scotland—and we think we have a lot of not-so-good land—we believed that it would be inevitable to have some slight reversion after the intensive cropping of the war years, but there are a few farmers who have allowed this process to go too far.
We believe that the executive committees ought to have certain powers of direction now which they can use if need be, but which we hope will not often have to be employed. Before I resume my seat perhaps I may repeat that the National Farmers' Union have been consulted and that they have again made


their position quite clear. They think we ought to have these powers, and in the circumstances I hope that the House will be able to assent to them.

9.51 p,m.

Mr. Snadden: I hope that I shall not emulate the lawyers on the Bill that went before, but this is a very important order. It raises a question of principle, and I think it would be wrong if it were allowed to pass into effect without something being said about it from this side of the House. By invoking paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of Section 35 of the Agricultural (Scotland) Act, 1948, the Secretary of State proposes to take powers under the order to serve directions on a farmer limiting the area of land which he may maintain under pasture. What the order does not do is to give specific directions in respect of the actual crops. We must get that point clear. The order expires on 31st December,1950.
I do not think that hon. Members on this side of the House like directions at any time. As the hon. Gentleman has just said, when a similar order for England and Wales was brought before this House my hon. Friends divided the House against it. We in Scotland had hoped it would not be necessary for our own Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, to come to this House for similar powers, but we recognise that, because of the maladministration of the Government, we have now to face a vastly different position from then.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As regards what he calls the maladministration of the Government, may I ask the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) if he can give us any case in which the Opposition have divided on the Third Reading of any Government Measure for Scotland?

Mr. Snadden: I am referring to the economic situation of the farmer. In any event, I think we agree that our economic position has vastly deteriorated since 1948 and that we are now in an emergency. For that reason we take a different view of the order.
Further, as the Under-Secretary has just said, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland are not, I understand, opposed to the order. I think it would be inaccurate to say that we asked for

it. I think the Under-Secretary will concede that that is an indication that the agricultural industry in Scotland is out to do its very utmost to help the country in this time of extreme difficulty. For those reasons we do not intend on this side of the House to oppose the order, but it is necessary, even at the expense of keeping the House for perhaps five or six minutes, that we should examine one or two questions which arise out of it. After all, here are powers to serve directions upon agricultural producers. "Why is the order necessary at all?" is the question in my mind. If it is a fact that co-operation in the industry among farmers has failed, are we certain that the Government have co-operated with the farmers? Those are the two questions into which we should look.
The reason for this order, so far as I can see, apart from the dollar crisis, which has quickened matters at St. Andrew's House, is that our cropping targets have not been reached, and that there is a tendency to lay down land to grass. Quite true, in a small minority of cases, excessive areas of grass are being laid down by certain farmers, who, I agree, must be pulled up if the best results are to be achieved all round. No one in his senses would disagree about that, but, in getting at the small minority who are not playing the game, very great care will have to be exercised by the people who are to carry out this order.
We must remember that the percentage of pasture to tillage is by no means the yardstick of efficiency of an agricultural holding, and that is why the Minister is quite right in bringing in this order, rather than invoking the powers under the Act. We cannot put all the farmers under the wartime cropping directions, because some of them are not farming badly at all. Everything will depend on how the agricultural executive committees interpret their instructions from the Minister, and whether they take into account the available resources of the farmer and a good many other things as well. We on this side of the House are hoping that the order will not have to be used at all, but we shall watch very carefully to see what happens if. in some cases, it should be used.
Because of the fall in tillage, there has been some criticism of farmers in Scotland, and also in England and


Wales I think, that they have been falling down on their jobs, but I say without hesitation that such criticism is really both unjust and uninformed. The good farmer will not continue to stock his land to death year after year, even for high prices. It is against all his experience as a farmer, because he knows that, after the tremendous effort during the war—and many of us increased our tillage area by over 70 per cent.—he simply must rest his land in order to restore its fertility. It was because of the fact that there was so much fertility in our land that we were able to make that great effort during the war.
The position in Scotland today is that we are striving for an even greater production than was ever achieved during the war, but with diminishing resources, and I will give a few examples. The subsidies on fertilisers are disappearing and those on feedingstuffs are also being withdrawn. The freight rates are to go up and the licensing of agricultural tractors is to be washed out very shortly under a new Bill. The ploughing grants are to stop on 31st December. Is it any surprise that the farmer, when he looks at these things, says that it does not seem very logical that the cost of fertilisers should jump and the ploughing assistance grants be stopped at the very same moment when we are being pressed for a greater effort than we even had to make during the war?
I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary will appreciate this point concerning the peculiar situation of Scotland as regards cropping, which has to be taken into account. We grow practically no wheat in Scotland, and, for poultry, we have 100,000 acres or more. We look upon barley as a crop which is only grown in certain stretches. It is true that I grow a little myself in the centre of Scotland, but not quite enough for using as feed. The result is that we are forced back to one important cereal crop—oats. Whereas wheat is subsidised in terms of flour, oatmeal is not; and whereas the commodities under the Agriculture Act—

Mr. T. Fraser: On a point of Order. I rather think that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward arguments to which I could not possibly reply on this order. He has been discussing wheat subsidies and

the absence of a subsidy on oats, and all sorts of things which seem to me to be miles from the provisions of the order which we are discussing, and I think that if I attempted to reply to his arguments I should probably be out of Order.

Mr. Snadden: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am out of Order, but he is bringing in an order serving directions on agricultural producers, and I am doing my best to say why it is that we have a fall in our tillage area, and why this order has been issued. I know that when we get on to the oats subsidy and the failure of the present Government to include it in the same category, I am on a very sticky wicket as far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned.

Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman certainly is.

Mr. Snadden: I am only drawing attention to the fact that these things show that if co-operation within the agricultural industry has not been great enough to secure the answer without directions, the Government have very good reason for looking at their own administration in order to see whether they are co-operating with the farmers.
A very big effort is being demanded, and the hon. Gentleman's Department should again review what they are asking the Scottish farmers to do. For what my opinion is worth, i think we are attempting too much all at once—something rather more than can be done at the present time. But, having taken these powers, which we are not going to oppose, I want to ask the Secretary of State and his Department to do their best to remove any unfair handicaps that cripple production at the same time as this order is brought in. It is often contended that the success of the food production drive rests entirely in the hands of the farmers. In my opinion, that is utter nonsense. The success of the food production drive depends on co-operation between the farmer, his workers and the Government. If the Government do not co-operate we shall not get the answer. As I have indicated, we shall not oppose this order, but we feel that everything will depend on how it is used by the agricultural executive committee.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Representing as I do a great dairy farming constituency, it is very natural that I


should have an eye to pasture and the possibility of its being ploughed up. I did not feel that the hon. Gentleman had made out a case tonight. He started by saying that his right hon. Friend did not wish this order to be taken as evidence that the policy of freedom had failed, and he quickly went on to say that he did not believe that it had failed. He then said why he thought the order was necessary, but it can only be necessary if he thought that the policy had failed. In fact, he admitted that in some cases the policy of freedom had failed.
The House will certainly wish to know what is the proportion of cases in which he thinks that this policy has failed, to what extent it has failed, and where it has failed. Has it failed all over the country, and is he going to take these powers universally throughout the country, or is he only going to apply them in those areas where the policy is alleged to have failed? He has not made it clear who alleges it has failed. He did make it clear that the demand for this order certainly did not originate with the National Farmers' Union. With whom did it originate?

Mr. T. Fraser: May I quote one sentence from a letter written by the General Secretary of the Scottish National Farmers' Union? It says:
I have now to say that the Council of the Union yesterday unanimously agreed to support the action which the Secretary of State proposes to take.

Mr. Macpherson: I am bound to say that the National Farmers' Union have not got very much alternative. What would have happened if the National Farmers' Union had said the opposite? Would the hon. Gentleman have reversed the order? Would he not have brought the order forward at all? I do not for one instant think that that is so. It certainly is not clear to me, and the hon. Gentleman has not made it clear, why these compulsory powers are necessary. There is not the slightest doubt that the farmers have been putting forward their best efforts. My hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) has said, as the farmers say, that they have to have an eye to the fertility of their land, in case it is exhausted.
But there is another thing which may also be exhausted, and that is very often the energies of the farmers themselves. In many farms, owing to the amount of

ploughing that they have been doing in recent years, they have been greatly stretched; and a number of my constituents have told me that if they are asked and even more so if they are ordered, to plough up more they will simply chuck in their hands altogether. They cannot stand for this at all. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I can assure him that this is what I am told.

Mr. T. Fraser: Do not take it too seriously.

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman says "Do not take it too seriously," but nobody can say that the farmers are not the best judges of how much in the long run they can afford to plough up on their own farms, and that is the main criterion we have to follow in this matter. It is in the long-term interest of the country to make certain that not too much is ploughed up so that the fertility of the land is maintained. It is in the short-term interest of the country to get the maximum production, and that to a large extent means that we should maintain what is pasture as pasture. Therefore, I do not feel that any case has been made out for compulsion of this kind.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I must defend the farmers of Scotland against the implied attacks of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). He seemed to assume that the farmers of Scotland were afraid of the Secretary of State, and the Under-Secretary of State. I very much object to that because I know that if the farmers of Ayrshire had any criticism to level against the Secretary of State for Scotland they would be the first to come forward and state it most emphatically.

Mr. Snadden: They will not come under this order. It is all grass in that area.

Mr. Hughes: No. The hon. Gentleman does not know as much about my constituency as I do. If the farmers had this great objection and if they were in revolt against this proposed dictation by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I am sure that they would be quite capable of expressing their point of view to the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. After all, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland are a very active organisation, and I object to the assumption that the


National Farmers' Union are not looking after the best interests of their members.

Mr. Snadden: No such accusations were made. I understood that the National Farmers' Union have not opposed this order, and I think an hon. Friend of mine also said so.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for West Perth (Mr Snadden) speaks for the Conservative Party in this House on matters relating to agriculture, but he need not presume to speak for the National Liberal Party. We have it from the only spokesman of the National Liberal Party for Scotland that somehow or other the farmers are afraid to express their point of view, and that the Secretary of State is in some way imposing some kind of harsh policy upon the farmers of Scotland.
Yet we have just had read out to us the plain statement that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland are absolutely unanimous in favour of this. I suggest that to imply that the farmers of Scotland are in any way unable to put their point of view is entirely without foundation. I was not sure whether the hon. Member for West Perth was damning this Order with faint praise or praising it with faint damns, but he went out of his way to have a kick at the Government and he used the words, "The maladministration of the present Government." I presume he was referring to agriculture, but when I challenged him to state on which major Measure the Opposition had opposed the Government he rode away on broad generalities, saying something about the economic situation.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Would not the hon. Member agree that that would be legislation, not administration?

Mr. Hughes: He referred to maladministration.

Mr. Snadden: That is what produced the Order.

Mr. Hughes: I presume that if the Opposition were doing their duty they would be going into the Division Lobby over and over again to protest against legislation on agriculture which this Government had introduced. But this Government have been exceptionally good to the farming people. This has been the

best Government the farmers of this country have ever had and I believe the Scottish farmers know that, and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland knows it, too.

Mr. Snadden: Do not believe it.

Mr. Hughes: I will give one instance of how we can test the extent to which there has been maladministration of agriculture under the present Government. Compare the bankruptcies of farmers in Scotland last year with those in any comparable year under a previous Government. The farmers of Scotland know very well that this has been a good Government. The National Farmers' Union has endorsed the policy of the Government, as the Secretary of State has informed the House, and it is merely captious and niggling criticism to try to put a case against this order.

10.13 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think we might have disposed of the business more rapidly had it not been for the well-intentioned efforts of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to put in a little constituency work while there was yet time. Nobody blames him for that, of course; the Election is approaching and the maladministration of the Government will shortly earn for them the condemnation of the electors. My hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) was referring to the general maladministration of the Government which has brought about a situation as a result of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to that Box and said that our civilisation was in danger of withering away. I call that maladministration and I should like to know what the hon. Member calls it.
It is on account of that situation that these exceptional efforts are being called for, and all my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) said was borne out by the statement read out by the Under-Secretary—that "… the request for this order did not originate with the farmers." On both those points, therefore, my hon. Friends were completely correct and, if I may say so, the rather amateurish attempts of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire to rush to the defence of the Under-Secretary were both maladroit and unjustified.
The hon. Member mentioned the remarkable improvement in the conditions for the farmers—I take it more particularly in South Ayrshire—and I should like him to ask those farmers how much of that improvement is due to the Milk Board, which I had the honour of introducing, and the licensed Milk Administration which a Government of which I was a Member had the honour of bringing forward. At the desire of the Government we are now limiting the best and most profitable crop of Scotland, which is grass; and that is what the Government are asking us to do because of the difficulties in which they find themselves in dollar earning. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture, after all, spent a great deal of time debating opposite me when I was Minister of Agriculture and opposed many of the beneficent measures from which he has since reaped so much advantage—

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): And will do so again.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: —and I am glad to see that he accepts our view of the relative future of the two parties. I only say that he will admit that grass is, in fact, the most important crop in Britain, and that from the stock-feeding point of view an increase in the pastures of this country is the best thing we can achieve.

Mr. T. Williams: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not suggesting that the quantity or quality of grass is determined by the acreage of grass?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No, indeed. But is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting the limitation of pasture on bad ground? Not at all. He is asking for the limitation—I take it that this is what the order is about—of pasture on good ground. The right hon. Gentleman must not try to ignore the importance of pastures as such, and I am sure he would not try to. No practical farmer suggests that the amount of grass is determined by the acreage of grass, but that is what the order suggests—the limitation of acreage—

Mr. Alpass: No.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, it does. The hon. Member must really not make those livestock noises—if I may so call them. We are discussing livestock, and they are to that extent in Order.

Mr. Alpass: Will it not have to be decided under these orders whether there should be any direction or not by the county agricultural committees, and are not the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite showing a great want of understanding of and of confidence in the agricultural committees?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No, I should not say that, but I would say that the hon. Member is not fully acquainted with the agricultural situation in Scotland. We are discussing particularly the problems of Scotland, and I am only saying that my hon. Friends have contended that this is admittedly a measure of compulsion and that the measures of persuasion have not only not been fully exhausted but have actually been diminished.
The ploughing-up grant, for instance, as a great measure of stimulation for work on marginal land, is being discontinued; and not only being discontinued but being discontinued in circumstances in which in Scotland seem singularly inappropriate, in that this ploughing is not taking place on pastures capable still of making a contribution to our fortunes here. This date has been chosen arbitrarily by the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State, and the ploughing-up grant and the fertiliser grant, and other measures have been discontinued. I know that other measures for encouraging tillage are being discontinued, but it seems a little odd in the Government that, at the same time, they should ask for powers to compel stimulation of tillage. We only say these seem to us evidences of a not fully coherent or consistent policy, and that these things will have to be watched with very great care.
As my hon. Friend said, we have had the statement of the Government—reiterated by every leading member of it from the Prime Minister downwards—that we are facing a state of great crisis and a state of grave deterioration of our affairs, and so we naturally do not wish to refuse the Government the powers for which they are asking, but we say that these powers must be watched with caution, and must be withdrawn at the earliest possible moment.

Resolved:
That the Agriculture (Maximum Area of Pasture) (Scotland) Order, 1949, dated 10th November, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (ECONOMY MEASURES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Dye: We have heard from the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) that success in agriculture now depends upon the fullest co-operation between the farmers, the farm workers and the Minister of Agriculture. So we shall probably find the Minister of Agriculture in the highest spirits, as he has come from the great fat stock show where he saw the results of that co-operation, and where no doubt he took some pride in the part he has played. Not only will he have seen some of the finest stock that has ever been produced in the world, but he will have been associating with the farmers who are very happy in having co-operated with him to produce that stock and to produce crops from our farms.
I raise this matter this evening because of the Prime Minister's statement on economies some weeks ago, so far as they relate to agriculture. I am not against economy in administration. Nor am I against streamlining our agricultural efforts, because I realise that as time goes on the farming community must produce greater quantities of food with still greater efficiency, so that fewer people produce more food. In that respect the Government must set an example. But the figure of saving given to us was of about £6 million annually, which is to be made first by some adjustments in the potato acreage subsidy.
In the past potato year the subsidy payment has been £12 for 10 acres, and after that a smaller amount of, I think, £8. We are informed that next year the payment will be £10 for every acre grown, for as small a plot as a quarter of an acre. Well, if the acreage in 1950 is the same as it was in 1949, this will account for something over £13 million. The estimated subsidy for 1949 is just over £14 million, so it is not anticipated that a very big saving will be made on the potato acreage subsidy. We must then look elsewhere for proposed savings to bring the total up to £6 million next year.
While on the question of the acreage payment for potatoes, I must ask whether the Government are sure that this is the best method of getting the greatest quantity of potatoes from our land. I personally do not think it is. I think that it would be wiser to pay for potatoes rather than to pay for acreage, to direct the whole of our effort towards getting as much as we possibly can out of as small an acreage as we can, leaving it to the farming community to choose the acres they will devote to potatoes, provided that their general effort is aimed at putting a sufficient acreage under cultivation. When I was in Wales a few weeks ago I encountered small farmers who were growing four acres of potatoes a year and getting £10 an acre subsidy—thus drawing £40 a year for growing potatoes—yet they never sold a potato on the market; and as far as I could understand, they were under no obligation to sell them. All they had to do was to make an application, which might be investigated, saying that they had grown that acreage of potatoes. As far as I could discover, what they were doing was taking up some of the potatoes, feeding them to the pigs and then eventually eating the pigs. That is what can happen under such an arrangement.
It is said that the reason for the acreage payment is to enable farmers of the poorest land to be able to grow potatoes at a profit. I have seen some of the poorest land that we have in this country carrying, even this year, crops of potatoes of nine tons to the acre, where the cultivation has been well done and the manuring has been correct. These are the two chief items in producing good crops of potatoes.

Mr. Douglas Marshall (Bodwin): And the weather.

Mr. Dye: The weather, of course, has something to do with it. I think that this year was the most adverse in the Eastern Counties for growing crops of potatoes because the rainfall was the lowest for many years; so that in the circumstances of a low rainfall it is possible to produce good crops where the purpose of the farmer is to get good crops; and the whole of Government policy should be directed towards getting the finest crops.
Therefore, as a long-term measure, certainly I should be against paying an acreage subsidy instead of paying a price for potatoes per ton which would enable the efficient farmers to get a satisfactory return. I think that should be the aim of Government policy—to enable the good farmer to get a return which covers his cost of production. I hope that the Minister will eventually look into this question of the potato acreage subsidy to see whether we cannot have cheaper administrative costs and give the farmers a satisfactory price for their potatoes.
The other means of saving which was given was the slowing down of the acquisition of land. I wonder what purpose the Government have in mind. For what purpose are they acquiring tend? Is it for small holdings, for farm institutes or other educational purposes, or for demonstration farms? Are they to be slowed down? It is generally agreed that these things are essential for maintaining and improving our agricultural knowledge and practice.
Another question that is a cause of concern relates to the building of agricultural workers' cottages. I have had letters recently on this subject, and I have seen it stated by opponents of the Government that the Government's policy is to slow down the building of agricultural workers' cottages. As I understand the position—and if I am not correct, I hope the Minister will correct me—the building of agricultural workers' cottages which took place under Section 3 of the Housing Act, 1938, is not limited by the statement that was recently made, for these cottages come under an allocation to the district and are not subject to the limitation on private building licences.
If that is so, I cannot see how the statement about the number of private licences that are to be issued will limit the number of cottages that can be built by farmers and landowners for their workers and let at a rent and under a tenancy agreement such as is covered by the last Act relating to these houses. I should like the Minister to make a statement clarifying the position for the guidance of rural district councils, farmers and others who are interested in the building of cottages by private people for farm workers. It has also been stated in some quarters that farm

water supplies and the extension of electricity to farms will be slowed down. If that were the case, there would be some lack of incentive, for these developments in agriculture are essential if the country is to achieve its agricultural targets.
There are one or two other matters to which I should like my right hon. Friend to reply. He will know that in my constituency a large tract of land has been taken for a battle training area and that during the past two or three years a great part of this area has been cropped under his Department. Recently the War Office said that no further crops were to be grown, and the farmers were so informed. In reply to a Question which I asked last week, the Under-Secretary of State for War said that the War Office had changed their decision and would enable some of this land to be cropped. I ask my right hon. Friend to see that satisfactory arrangements are made for as much as possible of this land to be cultivated in the coming year and in future years.
What were described as the largest manoeuvres to be held in that area were held a week ago. When I visited the area following the manoeuvres, the land in the safety belt had not been touched in any way. There was nothing to stop the cultivation of that land. Can my right hon. Friend see that, through his Department, early arrangements are made for full cultivation of this land in the national interest? The farming community and the military community must live side by side. Both need the land, one to grow food and the other for training for defensive purposes. That being so, I hope that there will be the fullest co-operation between his Department and the War Office so that as small an area as possible is reserved for training purposes and wherever possible such land is cropped or grassed, so that we make the best of the situation in which we find ourselves.
Nothing that I have said detracts from the great efforts of my right hon. Friend and his Ministry during the past four or five years, and the whole country is glad to see the progress that has been made. We all desire to produce as much food as possible for the nation in order to save dollars and promote health. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say something this evening that will dis-


courage those who are saying that economies will prevent the farming community from making their full contribution.

10.34 p.m.

Brigadier Medlicott: I share the doubt of the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) about whether the existing potato acreage payment is the perfect system for producing the results we have in view, but as it is the accepted method, I regret the economy cuts have fallen on it in the way they have, because they seem to me to be likely to discourage and affect chiefly the smaller grower. That remark applies also to the alteration in the minimum qualifying acreage from one-tenth of an acre to one-quarter of an acre. I should like the Minister to say what approximate saving it is thought that change of the qualification of acreage is likely to bring about, because again it seems to me a change that will bear heavily on the small producer, whose expenses are necessarily relatively high.
A certain amount of doubt was caused by the delay in announcing the details of the changes in the payments. The Prime Minister made his statement op 24th October, but it was not until 10th November, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk that the details of the changed method of payment were announced. Presumably the details must have been known on 24th October, and, while I am not suggesting that the delay was very serious, it did lead to unsettling rumours going round. One of these rumours was that the qualifying acreage was to be raised to three acres. It would have been helpful if the statement could have been issued sooner after the announcement by the Prime Minister. If the Minister can say anything about this matter, I shall be grateful.

10.36 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I am pleased that my hon. Friend has given me an opportunity briefly to answer the questions which he and other hon. Members have put. I should have preferred to have had this opportunity when more hon. Members were present, so that they could better understand the full significance of it. If

I may, I should like to say a word on the effect which Government economies may have upon agriculture, including cuts in capital expenditure.
Regarding the adjustment of the potato acreage, these payments were introduced in the early days of the war so that an adequate return could be provided for the efficient farmer on poor potato land without giving excessive returns to the grower on good land. As my hon. Friend is aware, yields vary enormously according to the quality of the land. He referred to a case this year where he had seen nine tons of potatoes to the acre produced. The average for the country is about seven per acre. If one farmer gets nine tons, someone else is getting five tons to make that average for the country. But it does not quite work out like that.
It seems to me that the wartime Government and the present Government had no alternative, while they required as an insurance an outsize yield of potatoes, but to encourage people to produce potatoes on non-traditional potato land. The acreage payment was the only solution. We had the over-all price, and the provision of an acreage payment was intended to bring growers' returns in the heavy-producing areas and the thinner-producing areas nearer together. I can assure my hon. Friend that the moment the time arrives when, instead of some 1,300,000 or 1,400,000 acres of potatoes. we get something much nearer to our prewar acreage of 730,000 acres, I shall be very happy to see the acreage payment go altogether, so that we can have potatoes grown on land more suitable for potatoes, and the traditional non-potato producing areas produce crops for which they are more suitable.
We have increased the qualifying area of potatoes for which the subsidy can be paid from one-tenth to one-quarter of an acre. That will save money in administration, and it will save money in that those who produce less than one-quarter of an acre will not receive the acreage payment. It may be that 100,000 or 200,000 producers will get paid on a slightly lower average and to that extent they will lose very slightly. But no one can lose more than £2 10s. in one year. Therefore, the effect on the farmer will be small, but on the whole it will be of great importance to the nation. I believe the saving on the quarter of an


acre qualification, plus a smaller overall acreage, will be quite considerable.
My hon. Friend asked me a question about the acquisition of land. The purchase of land under the powers conferred upon me by the Agriculture Act, 1947, will proceed more slowly than otherwise contemplated, but I fear that I cannot give any details. I can say, however, that we are deferring less urgent acquisitions as, for instance, experimental husbandry farms. We have several of these farms, and we intend to get more, but some have been deferred for a short time.
Enough has been said to show that from the day when the Government took office we have been extending facilities for agricultural education. Where approval has been given to a local authority to provide an institute, there is no question of its being withdrawn, and work will proceed according to schedule. Where approval is sought for a new institute because of priority in the Loveday Report, it will be dealt with on its merits.
On the question of capital investment generally, it will not be denied that the Government have played their full part in the expansion programme by making it possible for the farmers to get the tools they require for the job. The increased allocation of steel for machinery, the organisation of the supply of water pipes, and of components for farm buildings are a few of the examples of what is a very old story. Last year our long-term programme for investment in agriculture was submitted to the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, and later it was published in a White Paper. While it is not possible to assess accurately the requirements of thousands of farmers, I think that our estimates have been remarkably close.
A great deal has still to be done in extending and modernising farm buildings, and although agriculture must make its own contribution to economising on the building industry side of the national investment programme, I do not expect any appreciable reduction in the programme for improving fixed equipment on our farms. My hon. Friend referred to houses. As will be appreciated, for broad reasons, the housing programme has had to be curtailed. The effect of this will be a reduction in the allocation to local authorities, and it will be somewhere in the region of 10 per cent. less

than 1949, but most of the cuts are likely to fall on houses built under private licences, which are mostly houses for sale.
The houses will be allocated where the need is greatest and special consideration will be given to such areas on a selective basis instead of an a percentage basis, as has been the case hitherto. If a reduced allocation creates special difficulties for agriculture, then obviously those difficulties must be dealt with in the regions and, if necessary, later on at headquarters. I should like to make it clear that subsidies for houses allocated for agricultural workers are still available.
My hon. Friend referred to water supplies and electricity schemes. Any cuts in capital expenditure by the Electricity Boards will necessarily fall on work other than generating plant, for unless there is proper generating plant distribution falls short, but to what extent is problematical.

Mr. Douglas Marshall (Bodmin): Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that they have been slowing down in the Southwestern Area?

Mr. Williams: I have not seen any slowing down yet. There has not been any slowing down because the Central Electricity Authority and the area boards are terribly anxious to carry on with their electrification of the countryside as fast as possible. Wherever the production of home-grown food is at stake, I am certain that priority will be given for extending electricity to farms wherever possible. The amount of work on arterial water courses has to some extent been scaled down, and some schemes have been deferred, but there is no suggestion for cutting grants for field drainage or water supplies to farms.
My hon. Friend referred to the battle training area at Stanford, but all I can say is that, once the training gets into its full stride, I fear that there will be very little land of the danger area available for agricultural use. Certainly, we have made arrangements that whatever land can be made available, consistent with training requirements, the very best use will be made of it.
I should like to say, in conclusion, that the Government have already made substantial provision for certain kinds of


farms in the Hill Farming Act and limited provision for marginal production, and grants for water and drainage works. Despite this, there are gaps, and inquiries are proceeding to ascertain the area of land which does not qualify for assistance and which could be improved at modest cost. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that we should like to see an improvement in the stock-carrying capacity of the marginal land, and I can say that we are trying to see how this can be done. It is impossible, in the time available, to answer all the questions raised, but I hope that I have at least given an indication that the economies referred to by the Prime Minister a few days ago will not

materially affect the progress of agriculture.

Brigadier Medlicott: As the right hon. Gentleman touched on the question of land acquisition by Government Departments, may I ask him to keep a very special eye on this, because in Norfolk we are losing a lot of land to the Departments, and the farmers are particularly concerned about it?

Mr. Williams: No area of land—a yard, or acres—is taken unless we have had a very careful look at it.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes to Eleven o'clock.